Ron Paul, huh?<quoted text>
When you say "do better," do you mean someone who is able to operate effectively within the thoroughly corrupt power establishment that has hijacked this nation? I take the opposite view: doing better means challenging entrenched and corrupt power, exposing it to the public scrutiny, making transparent that which is currently opaque.
Any "front runner" who receives Republican or Democratic party support is a servant of the corrupt establishment. That's axiomatic. The two major parties are thoroughly owned at the national level. Both Bush and Obama serve their campaign contributors: banksters and the military industrial complex and big pharma/agra. And none of these industries is remotely concerned with the welfare of human beings and the planet in general.
Rather than a major party endorsement, a better indication of the value of a candidate is whether the mainstream corporate media shuns him or her. If these candidates have no media platform from which to broadcast the issues that they consider important and their solutions to a national audience, then there is an improved chance that they are honest and a threat to the corrupt establishment.
Using this as a first approximation guide, I think a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich administration would be "better." We might wind up with the assassination of one or both of these men (and I would not want that, of course) but the American people need to understand how thoroughly corrupt this nation has become, and how the partnership between cryptocratic government institutions and power/profit-hungry criminal cartels has completely undermined representative government, "balance of power" divisions, etc.
And Cynthia McKinney, a warrior who isn't afraid to take on the "big boys" would certainly be "better" as well.
I never would have guessed...