Singular

The talk in the office today has been a circular conversation about the results of yesterday's primaries in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. It's the same conversation that's been had everyday for the past six months.

ObamaClintonMcCain.

They should be one singular candidate. In reality there isn't too much of a difference between all three. Experience doesn't necessarily matter and they all are politicians working towards that common goal of sitting behind (arguably) the most powerful desk in the world.

But why should they be the only candidates allowed to run? Why should they be the ones who work for us? If they are working for us, shouldn't we have a greater variety in our decision making process?

I just don't know how comfortable I am with the idea of only having two viable choices come November. I'm not a fan of neither McCain or Clinton, and I'm on the fence with Obama, who one minute says what I want and the next plays the party line like everyone else.

There is always Ralph Nader....

Who knows? Maybe this system is beyond repair...

Or maybe I can't take the circular conversations of my co-workers.