What level have we reached in politics? Hillary Clinton is just "listening" in New York and, on the national scene, everyone is into drugs. While not actually, that is the number one issue for Texas Governor Bush. The media cannot help but focus on rumored drug use by George W. Bush. President Bill Clinton's character does not count, because all of our pockets are filled with cash and/or stocks.

While I personally cannot approve the use of drugs or smoking pot, even if there is no inhaling involved, we all have to step back and ask how many 40 and 50 year olds could today pass a litmus test of being drug free in their earlier years. And how many captains of industry or other politicians could take the scrutiny given to Bill Clinton or George W. Bush without something turning up? And for those of us who are parents, many of us have had to turn the page over the indiscretions of our children and provide forgiveness.

As a result of the media being content to listen with Hillary and going into a frenzy over George W. Bush, the real substantive issues are lost. And the voters are the ones deprived of debate over really important issues -- even though the media cries out for campaigns which are more issue oriented.

It is ironic that the media should bear the responsibility for the failure to cover issues. The same media cries out for campaign finance reform so that all candidates are on an even playing field. But, the media then makes the playing field uneven by the way in which it covers a campaign. If the media does not cover issues, who will? Candidates are then forced to pay for advertising to reach voters.

Take a look at the coverage given to the Clintons as they visited Westchester to look for a home. Hordes of print and TV reporters covered their every move. Looking for a home is an everyday occurrence. Admitting that house hunting for the president's family is more unique than if you or I were searching for a house, I still have to wonder why the emphasis on house hunting and not the coverage of issues? Perhaps, there is really nothing happening in New York.

When I ran for the US Senate in 1988, there was hardly any coverage of the issues -- except for two statewide TV debates. Even the New York Times, which editorially gave me "praise" for "making sensible suggestions on issues," did not cover one of my "sensible suggestions." I refer to my own experience, because the only way it is possible to get out a message is to pay for TV advertising. It is a vicious circle -- one which could be eased if papers, TV and radio covered campaign issues as vigorously as they have listened to Hillary, reported on Monica and pursued George W. Bush.

Don't hold your breath.