that doesn't really make sense as a response to my comment. the OP article is a summary of how NEITHER candidate (the corrupt one or the bigot) can claim to rep

that doesn't really make sense as a response to my comment. the OP article is a summary of how NEITHER candidate (the corrupt one or the bigot) can claim to represent the electorate. they are both appointees of un-representative minority factions. your post, which I was replying to, was advocating for some kind of moderate politician as an alternative. I pointed out that Obama has already been that politician. I'm questioning your notion that what we need is a moderate. In other words, your suggestion made no sense to me. Why did you suggest it?