The ever-thrilling topic of military spending is our text du jour. We seem to have two categories of comment about our candidates on the issues. The first is that there's not a dime's worth of difference between them, and the second is that they are separated by great yawning gulfs of difference and that the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. Well, on the military, there are differences, but not enough.

George W. Bush wants to spend more on the military, and Al Gore wants to spend even more than that. The problem is that's not the problem. The problem is that we spend money on the military stupidly, and this in turn affects everything else, because this election is about choices and priorities.

More for the military means less for education, child care, health care and all the rest; the military is still the biggest ticket item in "discretionary" spending.

If you're in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois or Missouri, the presidential race is high-tension and inescapable. The continuous blat from the air wars -- the television and radio advertising campaigns -- is everywhere. More money is being spent on this presidential election than ever before, but it's being spent in fewer than a dozen states, so the concentrated effect is practically stunning.

When we decide that yesterday's breakthrough purchase has become today's outmoded albatross, we may gripe about the hassle and expense of upgrading to new systems. Sometimes, no doubt, we buy more for reasons of consumer vanity than practical functionality.

But the common determination to keep up with the (Digital) Joneses isn't mere status-seeking. As the Internet continues to gain momentum, we're apt to believe -- for good reasons -- that we must not be left behind. In professional and financial realms, those who lack access to the latest in techno-communication are likely to find themselves at a distinct disadvantage.

The event was a modest announcement by the Office of the Special Prosecutor that there is insufficient evidence to bring a charge of wrongdoing against Bill or Hillary Clinton in the Whitewater investigation.

That story lasted exactly one news cycle, and then we dropped it like a hot rock. If that's a one-cycle story, just what the HELL has been going on for the last six years? Six years, $52 million, and there is no there there? There never was, and I'm sorry to play I-told-you-so, but I told you so. So what was this madness about?

David Maraniss of The Washington Post has this nice riff that he does about Bill Clinton as the Republicans' Moby Dick. They've had their harpoons in this white whale since '92, but they can't kill him -- he keeps dragging them to their deaths in his wake.

Fringe candidate Ralph Nader would have you believe that he has a chance and deserves a place at the table, let alone a second look. There are two main reasons why voting for Mr. Nader is not only futile but counterproductive to the environmental movement. Allow me to explain.

A vote for Mr. Nader is a vote for President Bush/Speaker DeLay

Texas Governor George Bush lacks substantive policy experience both in the domestic and international arenas. He is anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-labor, and most of all beholden to the far right of Bob Jones. How can he be up in the polls? He has two things in his favor this year: money and Ralph Nader. Mr. Bush’s fundraising extravagance is legendary. Let’s talk about Mr. Nader.