For months now both the Republican and Democratic candidates for President of the United States have been shelling us with their platforms, theories and solutions on television, in the newspapers, and with a tsunami of junk mail. They have attempted to explain to us all that they are, all that they represent, and all that they intend to do if elected, albeit not always with details or accuracy.
We usually judge movie actors on their brief performances in the screen as that is all that is required of that group. That's acceptable. Actors don't affect our lives significantly and usually do not run for public office, with certain rare exceptions. It's difficult to leave your $12 million home on your day off to shake hands with hoards of common, middle class people.
We, the voters, should know by now all that we are going to learn or be allowed to learn about the Presidential candidates, having been blitzed by their campaigns ad nauseum. We won't learn much more, if anything, until one or the other is elected and we observe if their fairy tales come true, which brings me to my point. It occurs to me that to make our decision on who should lead our country, after all that we have heard and read and observed, based on who is the best actor in a 90 minute performance, doesn't make sense. If good theatre is our only criteria, then maybe Dustin Hoffman and Tom Hanks should be the Presidential debaters. That's entertainment.
Vincent De Cerchio,