·Voting for Gore (11.7.2000) ·Down the Stretch: Still Reserving Final Judgment (10.31.2000) ·After The Final Debate: Tipping Slightly Toward Gore After His Strong Showing (10.20.2000) ·After the Second Debate: Still Waiting to Hear a Reason to Vote for One Guy Over the Other (10.13.2000) ·After the First Debate: Tie Goes to the Guy Who Didn't Screw it Up? (10.4.2000) ·Introduction (10.2.2000) Colleen is 25 years old and works as a web editor for a large private university. She is engaged to be married. In 1992 she was ineligible to vote. In 1996 she voted for Bill Clinton. taxes, welfare, and social security She is regular church-goer and is pro-choice. She believes in practicing abstinence, but doesn't want the government to get involved in these areas.

I am still stuck exactly in the middle after the last debate, which I think Bush fairly classified as a love fest. After the first debate, there were clear differences between the two and my indecision resulted from being unsure which issues should take greater weight. This time, my reaction was, well who's who? All they did was pander to each other and agree on just about everything.

They covered far fewer issues but I was happy to hear them discuss racial problems facing the United States. I was amused by Bush's glee when announcing that Byrd's killers would be executed - for someone who's pro-life he sure likes to kill people. Now I agree that the death penalty was the only just sentence for these men (although one of them got life, not death), but I don't think that qualifies as hate legislature in Texas, as Bush tried to imply. Neither candidate seemed to have anything of substance to say about racial issues other than to pontificate on the "racism is bad" theme. At least Gore talked a little bit about pushing through federal hate crimes legislation.

They focused a lot more on the military and I came away dejected by both. Gore seems ready to send out the troops for every playground fight that takes place anywhere in the world and Bush... well he doesn't seem to know his head from his elbow when it comes to using military force. First it's only for war, then it's for "national interest", then it's OK for genocide - in Europe, but apparently not in Africa - and in the end I couldn't detect any clear guideline he would follow. The Middle East is exploding in violence this week and my fiance's army reserve unit has been put on alert.... it is very important to me that I understand what criteria our next president will use to put my future husband's life in jeopardy.

In short, the second debate was long on congeniality, short on substance, and I never felt like either candidate was truly answering Mr. Lehrer's questions. Bush found a way to expound on his education plan when he was supposed to be discussing racial issues. (And by the way, his comments about education saving minorities were a bit ironic given Texas' very high minority student drop-out rate.) I truly hope the final debate yields something better on which to base my vote.

·Voting for Gore (11.7.2000) ·Down the Stretch: Still Reserving Final Judgment (10.31.2000) ·After The Final Debate: Tipping Slightly Toward Gore After His Strong Showing (10.20.2000) ·After the Second Debate: Still Waiting to Hear a Reason to Vote for One Guy Over the Other (10.13.2000) ·After the First Debate: Tie Goes to the Guy Who Didn't Screw it Up? (10.4.2000) ·Introduction (10.2.2000)