We said we wanted the debates to be about issues and substance - but we lied. We don't really care which one of these stick figures is better on the issues. What we're all thinking is: which one of these idiots do we have to look at for the next four years? This guy is gonna be in our living room. Everyday. In color. With a 24-hour news cycle. The lives of the serfs remain the same (as always), but the Czar ain't in Moscow anymore. He's in your face.

Gore knows his stuff (as the insufferable little martinet continually reminds us), the economy is booming (for somebody out there, anyway), and Dubya is clearly just a bush-league batter in this contest. So why, even after last Tuesday's debate - when the majority of Americans thought Gore won it - does it still look like a photo-finish?

Because nobody wants to vote for either of them. More to the point, nobody wants to admit they're voting for either of them. If Clinton could run for a third term we'd probably take him back (despite all his sexual peccadilloes and his pusillanimous poll-pulse-taking). That's how bad it is. I know it's a scary thought, but not as scary as getting either of these guys for the next four years.

I have a suggestion: just can the election. You know, let's not and say we did. Are we such slaves to custom that just because four years are up we have to choose something different? Let's just carry on as usual until the gas runs out, the internet blows up or we get invaded by Canada. When we get really fed up we'll just call a general election like they do over in England or Israel. Or Yugoslavia.

The truth of the matter is everybody has already voted. Hence the apathy and ambivalence. They've chosen not to choose. Nobody cares. How can they - when given what amounts to a Hobson's Choice? The alternatives we're offered are really no alternative at all. In the end we'll just have to settle for the horse nearest the stable door.

Our candidates were decided long ago. Bill Clinton chose the Democratic nominee when he chose Al Gore to be his running mate. No one can compete against the money (and, well, inertia) of an incumbent Vice-President these days. And George Bush - the dizzy, dim-witted, good-looking son of a former President - was chosen by a bunch of fat cats who told their fellow Republicans: here's your candidate, he'll win.

As for the Commission on Presidential Debates - sounds so official, doesn't it? Actually, it's corporate sponsored, nothing official about it. Basically, it's an arm of the Democrats and Republicans, but nobody tells you that.

Which reminds me of one of Al Gore's smarmiest moments on Larry King. I wouldn't have minded if he'd just said: "Hey, the American people want to see a debate between the two candidates who might actually win." Or something. Anything. Anything but "the Commission on Presidential Debates has ruled that a candidate must have 15% blah blah blah...."

And the debate! Although everything from the lighting to the temperature of the room was worked out ahead of time, apparently neither candidate was aware that some of the channels would be televising with a split screen. The result? It's the same guy with two heads. Those faces! Set off by those sepulchral uniforms (was the black suit and red tie mandatory?) all you see is two unappealing personalities. Bush looks okay when he's on his game, but when he's threatened or insecure he's like a pinball machine on tilt. His face collapses, the lips purse, his eyes dart, his head cocks at a bizarre angle like a deranged bird.

Gore is even scarier. Whenever an emotion is called for his facial muscles seem to undergo some sort of hydraulic action. And his recent tan didn't help. It made him look like George Harrison (wearing Man Tan). Actually, Gore doesn't look entirely human to me. There's something about his face that suggests a replicant from Bladerunner. I've seen more of a range of emotions on my son's iguana. If we have to look at one of these guys for the next four years couldn't we request personality implants or, at the very least, plastic surgery?

As to who looks more presidential, is there any question? The problem is that Gore looks like a president after the Franklin Mint has got a hold of him. And the wooden nickel side to Al is the least of it. It's the condescending attitude of a man who knows what's good for you. He's the snotty kid with his hand in the teacher's face. He knows all the answers and you don't (neither does Bush). Hey Al, if you're so smart, here's a question for you: What do the Middle East, Columbia, Star Wars, guns, NAFTA, and universal health care have in common? That's right! They were never mentioned in Debate #1.

It was all sound bites all the time - featuring Jim Lehrer as the timorous lion tamer throwing pieces of meat into the cage and withdrawing his hand as quickly as possible. For days we heard about what Gore had to do and what Bush had to do. Over and over the talking heads told us that Bush had to be knowledgeable and Gore had to be likable - as if we hadn't heard it ten times already. Problem is, nobody told the candidates. Bush fudged it with "fuzzy math," itself a fuzzy phrase. And Gore, in his very first minute, managed to say everything he was ever going to say (the 1% thing was said some 16 times) and sounded so robotic that the Gore supporters I watched the debate with were screaming "just shut up" at the screen.

The main subject? The alleged Surplus - a mythical beast lumbering in the near distance whose hypothetical blubber will supposedly sustain us for the next 1,000 years. (Unless, of course, the stock market's Armani suits become transparent and the bottom falls out of the economy.) And why this obsession with figures? Does anything ever cost what they say it's going to? Do politicians ever do what they say they're going to? Is there even going to be a surplus? Listen folks, even if there is a surplus, chances are nobody's going to give us any of it. So don't worry, be happy!

Speaking of which, did any of you catch the sacred Undecideds? There was something decidedly suspicious about the fact that not one Undecided from any of the focus groups actually became a Decided during the course of the debate. Were they afraid they wouldn't be invited back for the next debate? Help! If any of the assembled groups of undecided voters that we saw following the debate are the ones who are going to cast the determining vote in this election we're really in trouble. I've never seen such an assemblage of morons. These people are either mentally challenged or on medication. Zombie Nation! Anybody who doesn't have a clue by the middle of October ought to have their head examined (not be put on national tv). Okay, okay, both candidates were bad (real bad), but couldn't the Undecideds just ask themselves who they want on the Supreme Court? Or whether they're for abortion?

The weirdest thing about the Undecideds was that they wanted, god help us, more specifics! I'd settle for some vision.