DE: Should the U.S. be concerned about the prospect of an Ortega presidency?

JC: Well, I'm not sure. This is our 67th election around the world. We have experience in many different kinds of elections. And I don't think there's any doubt that Ortega has attempted to change his reputation. In the past, for instance, the election, say in 1990, his colors were red and black, his symbol was a fighting rooster, and his words were very harsh. This time his campaign manager is his wife Rosario, and now the major colors on his billboards are pastels, and his major appeal is to peace and reconciliation. He endorses a principle of free enterprise instead of socialism. So he's tried to change his attitude in the public's mind, and whether he'll succeed we won't know until the votes are counted.

DE: I've read where he's using John Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance" as his campaign theme song.

JC: Yes, that's true. And of course, as you know, in many countries around the world -- my wife and I have visited about 125 countries -- you hear John Lennon's song “Imagine” used almost equally with national anthems. So John Lennon has had a major impact on some of the countries that are developing in the world.

(2006-11-05) — A palpable wave of fear swept across the nation today as precinct-by-precinct voters began to realize that Wednesday morning they’ll probably wake up to news that, once again, they’ve elected the representatives they deserve.

“I want to vote for someone with personal integrity, honesty, solid moral character and a vision for the future of this nation that supercedes personal ambition,” said one Pennsylvania voter, “but instead it looks like we’re going to get someone who’s no better than me.”

The anxiety crossed political boundaries as Republicans and Democrats alike admitted that political advertising filled with gossip, innuendo, vitriol and lies was little more than what one voter called “my daily life, on steroids.”

After months of acrimonious debate on the national stage, insult exchanges on internet forums and blogs, and even some house-to-house political combat, many voters have begun to recognize that politicians behave badly toward each other because the U.S. government is “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

“You can pass laws to get the special interest money out of politics,” said one Chicago-area voter, “but that’s not enough. Real campaign reform would have to get the people out of politics. They’re what’s lousing it up, making it shameful. This would be a truly great government if it weren’t for the people in office and the people who elect them.”

Experts concede that while the government is hobbled by the handicap of human nature, it could still do some good if it had some checks and balances, limited power, rule by law instead of men, and if it were all superintended by some authority higher than mankind.

“If we could draft a document that would specify those constraints,” said one Congressional scholar, “Then we’d have the foundation for the greatest nation on earth.”