I thought Bob's post Wednesday was typical Bob: thoughtful and well-informed, full of both realism and hope. I tend to agree with him on most things, and I like that he pointed out that while the American public is cynical about its political leaders, this attitude is only sometimes deserved.

I also agree that Hillary Clinton's political ambitions are borne from a true desire to do good in the world. I also believe she's horribly corrupt, and her personal record is perfect for a state that has been represented in the Senate by the likes of Alfonse D'Amato.

Here's a knock against cynicism: Would you believe that a poll of "likely voters" showed that 75% are happy with their choices in this year's presidential election? Yes three-quarters like that they get to choose between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

I've already gone on the record repeatedly about Bush. For those who forgot or just didn't read what I've written in the past, I think Bush is a spoiled playboy with below-mediocre intellect, terrible experience, no mental energy and questionable character. He's never had to work for anything in his life, as he went to his father's college (and drank his way through it), inherited his family's businesses, and got to fly planes for the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam. He has no interest in government whatsoever, and the only reason he's running for president is the same reason he ran for governor: He wasn't even thinking about it until a few very rich men asked him to.

I've also written this many times and asked people to hold me to it: George W. Bush will never be elected president of the United States in his lifetime.

Based on personal knowledge, Bob speaks highly of Al Gore. I've "met" him twice, too, shaking his hand for about three seconds on two separate occasions in 1992. I've always lukewarmly liked Al Gore. He's clearly very smart, and I find him funny in a dorky, wonky kind of way. He also obviously loves governing. I think he'd make a great mayor or city council member. But he's definitely cruising for a name-change these days: I propose "Al Whore."

Don't get me wrong. I don't give a damn about whether he made fund-raising calls from his office (illegal) or the room next door (legal). So he appeared at a fund raiser at a Buddhist temple, who cares? But he's starting to smell like his boss, Bill Clinton.

During the 1992 campaign, when I was volunteering for Governor Clinton in Miami, I was impressed that he really seemed to think deeply about America's policies. I thought that Clinton might really make a difference in changing some of our government's most misguided ideas. But he started to show his true colors when he flew down to Miami (I carried one of his bags) to stay with his brother-in-law and raise some money. I found out the next night on the evening news that he had addressed the Cuban American National Foundation, an anti-Castro club of Cuban-American millionaires. Governor Clinton talked for 20 minutes about how important it was to keep up the embargo against Cuba, a policy which he clearly stated before that he opposed. But Clinton changed his tune, took his fat check, and flew back to Arkansas.

Al Whore is doing this now. Today, he decided he didn't care about what the White House or Department of Justice thought, he didn't care about parental rights or international law or immigration policies or anything. No, he decided that Elian Gonzalez should stay in the U.S., and should not go home with his father. As the Democratic nominee, it's realistic to assume that everything he does is related to his presidential campaign, and at this point, just like President Clinton, I'm hard-pressed to identify a single conviction Al Whore holds that he wouldn't change if he thought it unpopular.

The ultimate in this kind of empty politics swept through the Senate Wednesday: the yearly appearance of a House-approved Constitutional amendment that would grant Congress the power to pass laws against desecrating an American flag. Once again, this pathetically illogical atrocity "failed to pass" the Senate, meaning only 63 Senators voted for it. (Sixty-seven are needed to pass a Constitutional amendment.)

I admit that while I have strong feelings about abortion, gun control, the tax system, and the role of religion in government, I might be wrong about some or even most of my opinions. But not on this one. No, on this one, I know I'm right.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is my litmus-test issue. I have decided that I will never grant the privilege of my hard-won vote to any politician who supports a Constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning. In fact, last year when my Congressman (Jim Moran, Democrat) replied to a letter to tell me he was in fact planning to vote for it, I pledged personally to run against him in 2000. (The morning of the vote, however, his wife left him, and for some reason, he changed sides.)

Not a single person I intellectually respect supports the amendment, and even Colin Powell, the Michael Jordan of patriotism, has expressed his opposition to it.

But somehow 63% of Americans support changing the First Amendment to ban flag-burning.