Throughout this election we have all looked for that one candidate, who stirs hope in the hearts of Americans. In all elections that is true. We had Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Bush was that candidate in the 1988 election. It is disappointing to realize that there is no one who fills that position this year. This is exactly why Bush will win, not because he is the best, but because he is the best qualified of the pack.

The only other Republican candidate, Buchanan, fights with a negative campaign. I believe that the point of a campaign is to show what the candidates can do, not to prove what his/her opponent cannot do. But that is Buchanan's strategy, which amounts to nothing, in my opinion. Simply stated, he is saying "He can't do it ... How about me?" which should be totally disregarded.

As for the Democratic candidates, well, it simply isn't there, no spark, no new ideas. Any one of us could plan their campaign speeches. But, once in office, campaign speeches amount to nothing. Tsongas, I thought, had a chance, but he dropped out in March. The only thing he lacked was international experience and intensity, both of which are important qualities in the leader of the most powerful country in the world. Clinton has possibilities but seems more qualified to be a TV evangelist than a president. I don't believe the accusations about committing adultery. As voters, or future voters, we take into account the source from which information comes.

In the end, the only candidate barely qualified is Bush. It is a pity that in this rough economic and environmental decade we cannot find at least one candidate to relieve our stress about the future. Bush may not be the best qualified, but who else is there? n