Listen up, kids! Election 2000 looms large in front of us, and I know that you have placed researching each candidate and his respective platform high on your list of things to do, right after eating at Frary and watching Boy Meets World. But seriously, your vote may not matter all that much. Wait, you think, certainly choosing a president is an important task.

After all, does America need a Republican president who freebases cocaine? Maybe. Or does it need a Democratic president who in all likelihood has never cursed in his entire life? Hmm. More importantly, do these candidates differ in any way besides those of party and drug experience? Not really. In fact, I think the candidate who can use the most key words and catchphrases and still never once mention his actual opinion on the issues will win the election.

For the sake of fairness, no one knows if "Dubya" and Gore will even square off. It could end up as a contest between "the Shrub" and basketball star Bill Bradley, who apparently seems ever more appealing to voters. John McCain has even less of a chance of winning his party’s nomination than Bradley does, since McCain remains the only Republican candidate to admit to his mistakes, and the public finds such inveterate truth tellers mind-numbingly boring. The man even admitted that he broke up his first marriage by philandering! He also, shockingly enough, votes with his conscience and his good sense, and not with the Republican party or public opinion polls.

So now that McCain is out of the way, one must now begin to differentiate between our three remaining candidates: B-ball Bradley, Gore the Bore, and Dubya. Herein lies the real trouble. Because, aside from differences in their public personae, these guys all pander to key voting groups in basically the same way.

I, for one, find it extremely unlikely that each candidate suddenly loves Hispanics and supports Social Security by coincidence.

Aside from blatantly kowtowing to the admittedly-important Hispanic minority, all of our prospective presidents support accountability in public schools, a reduction in taxes for the middle and lower classes, and better health care.

These all sound fine to me, but what’s the point of voting when the result of the election will likely produce the passage of the same policies, especially when Bill Bradley states on his website that he differs from Al Gore in part because he "represented the most diverse state in the union," i.e. New Jersey. So "I know more black people than you do" is some sort of trump card? Please.

George W. Bush, though certainly not the only wishy-washy candidate, has taken a whole lot of flak in the past few months because of his lack of a stance on any of the issues. Most candidates for political office water down their message, but Bush truly kicks tail in this arena.

In one of his recent speeches, after blabbering on and on about the role of charities in eradicating poverty, he actually said we could help young people by telling them, "the dream is for you" (Check out http://www.georgebush.com/speeches/ 72299_duty_of_hope.htm for more sickening drivel).

Now that I have attempted to give you a brief overview of Election 2000, all that remains is for you informed, educated Pomona College students to follow the primaries and vote.

Though the pandering, meaningless blather, and candidate similarity may turn most voters off, the system will never change if we all sit on our intellectual high horses and look down our noses at the ridiculous goings on. Apathy is always the easy way out. If the dream really is for us, we should get off our asses and vote for the candidate who just maybe could rise above the crap. Anything to keep crack out of the White House.