I first want to begin by recognizing Bimal Chaudhurti’s extremely well-written (and thoughtful) response to the previous author’s editorial regarding Howard Dean (“Be aware of who Howard Dean really is,” Sept. 17, pg. 7). But, I would also like to add a few things that he may have neglected to mention, not necessarily about Dean, but about the entire presidential election.

Personally, I have not decided to vote for any candidate yet, and this is for a number of reasons. Although I do like Dean’s liberal attitude toward gay rights, affirmative action and capital punishment, much of his policy is still ambiguous. For example, he doesn’t believe capital punishment should be used unless the crime is terrorism, rape and murder or sexual child abuse. He is also conveniently abstract when he discusses legalizing gay marriage and appears to leave the matter unresolved by discussing civil unions as a better option. With that said, much of Dean’s political career has been checkered by moderate policy, both economically and socially. So, although he has presented himself as a social liberal, he hasn’t proved that in the past.

This much you can gather from Mr. Chaudhari’s article, but what he neglects to discuss are any of the alternative options to presidency, and any of Bush’s difficulties in office that relate to Dean’s attacks. Anyone can find a host of inconsistencies with any president or presidential nominee that has ever lived, things they say and don’t do, things they do and don’t say and things they have done they are not willing to publicly divulge. If you went down the list of the 10 Democratic presidential nominees, it would be easy to find fault with all of them and with Bush as well. Of course, it is important to investigate each person you could potentially vote for, but with every caution there is a reverse caution that should tell you to find the candidate with the most pluses and least minuses of all the choices. You will not find one candidate you agree with 100 percent, and if you do, you either work for them or don’t have a perspective of your own. Another thing Mr. Chaudhari left out is the type of campaign Dean has been running, which has been one of hope and reason, as opposed to Bush’s scare-and-sell tactic. While Dean may attack Bush often, I offer that many of those attacks are warranted.

My last and final point is more general than specific. As Americans, we must understand part of being a pure capitalist country is having a capitalist political system. Money wins, special interest groups rule and regular citizens don’t count. The lack of respectable candidates in our elections is simply the resultant system of democracy that puts the interests of a few rich over the many poor. Examine presidential candidates with scrutinizing attention, just like Mr. Chaudhari has done with Dean, but beware that no nominee is perfect, and none ever will be.

Ari Lachman CAS ’05