Is It Over? — that is the Obama opponent selection process after last week’s Florida primary. The more important question is should it be over? Some thoughts about each:

Yes, the political hype and candidate speechifying seems, at times, to drone on and on. But, is limiting it or shutting down the selection process the answer? I think not. Better still, absolutely not.

Yes, the humor and quick-comebacks to wrongheaded questions from gotcha panelists have made the so-called debates entertaining, at times. But the presidential selection process is not supposed to be of the type of programming that the television industry increasingly foists on the public and promotes as reality TV.

That said, the presidential selection process is, indeed, a most important civic reality. Truth is, along the way, each candidate — including those who have gone to the sidelines — has contributed to the process by pinpointing problems and issues of import to Americans. And, each candidate has spoken of ideas and actions that would help turn things around. That’s good.

Some candidates – though not all, at least consistently – have demonstrated the personal ability to comprehend and articulate the size and the scope of the problems, as well as the predicaments, that we all face as a nation and as We the People. That’s good, too.

Observing each of the candidates and listening closely to what each presidential aspirant has to say during the debates can be challenging.  Too often, especially with some, a candidate’s comments and responses to questions seem canned. That’s not good.

Also challenging  and distracting, though sometimes part of vetting, are the charges and countercharges about a candidate’s personal life, financial dealings and positions on the issues. Here’s a short sample. Bet you can recognize these. If you do, you’ll know which of the two so-called front-runners said it about the other:

“…. is breathtakingly dishonest — pro-abortion, pro gun-control, pro tax-increase.”

“Look in the mirror.”

Then:

“… political opportunist … not trusted…”

To which a noted former governor from the great state of (how did that old movie title song begin — “Way up North to …” — chimed in:

“Annoy a liberal - Vote ….!”

Further challenging conscientious citizens, who seek what many deem a truer alternative to the current president, is the cacophony of party and establishment insiders who seem to prefer to sell the public on settling for only one candidate: their ‘chosen one.’ That is never good.

And equally, if not more, worrisome is this about the Fourth Estate: Increasingly, the insider establishment sell has also become the script on the 24/7 cable news channels and the Sunday morning programs. 

Consider the familiar cast of media talkers and political insiders who fill the airways and our eardrums with fluid poll data and skewed spin as part of their presentation to influence primary voters everywhere.

Unfortunately, like almost all prior candidates regardless of party or suasion, the 2012 cycle of candidates and their campaign machines craft their initial messaging, then calibrate or wholesale change their content to fit different audiences in each state and even within the same state.

Such behavior suggests certain ‘fluidity’ within their own values and principles that can be appropriately tagged as inconsistence. When what we need from our prospective leaders is consistence.

That behavior also brings to mind this Truth Shot: People of principle do not change principles while people without principles will rent some for their purpose.

Richard Olivastro is president of Olivastro Communications. Contact him at: Rich Olivastro@gmail.com or by phone at 1-877-RichSpeaks.