One of the two major-party candidates for president is black, the other white.

Obviously, there is much more to say about them. We can talk about their ideas, character, experience, communication skills. Presumably, conscientious voters will choose the person they think can best do the job — regardless of race.

Not so, says Jacob Weisberg of Slate.com. According to Weisberg, given the collapse of the Republicans and the weak economy, everything is stacked in favor of Barack Obama. Therefore, if Obama loses the election, only racism could explain it.

Weisberg offers no coherent argument. He simply asserts that Obama has vastly more advantages than liabilities, while with McCain it’s vice versa. So the right choice is transparently obvious.

And hey, even if you disagree with Obama’s policy prescriptions, at least they’re “serious attempts” to deal with big problems. It doesn’t seem to occur to Weisberg that the “seriousness” of a proposed policy is not what makes it right or wrong. Or that a voter might reasonably consider the actual content of a proposal.

Of course, some voters might reject Obama out of racism. But it’s not self-evident that “racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.”

And would it not be racist, condescending, unjust, and downright stupid for us voters to treat a black man’s qualifications for the job of president as irrelevant, just to prove we’re not racist?

To his credit, Mr. Obama would expect more of us than that.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

This presidential campaign is about change, but it’s outside of government that change comes fast and furious. Maybe it’s just my advancing age but the world seems to be speeding 90 miles an hour into the future.

Actually, we’re spinning at over 1,000 miles an hour and soaring around the Sun at 67 times that rate. Some days it feels like it.

Yes, there is going to be change. It ought to come from us, not the insiders — or the politicians running to purportedly change Washington, or to change your neck of the woods, often after decades in office.

Most of our changes won’t come through government policies. They’ll happen in the marketplace, or at church, through a non-profit group, or in the neighborhood or family. But some changes do require politics.

Then, “We, the People” must be able to act. Which means citizens must be able to pass an initiative or call a referendum on a law passed by legislators.

Americans overwhelmingly agree, but some reformers don’t get it.

Once I argued with a major term limits supporter who suggested that term limits would improve legislatures enough to render the initiative process unnecessary.

Not long after, I debated an advocate of public financing for political campaigns. He said the initiative wouldn’t be needed once his reform was achieved.

There are many reforms. Because we live in an ever-changing world, we need the ability to keep making reforms. That’s the voter initiative.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

His name is not Dan Kramer Burr, it’s simply Dan Kramer. The “Burr” stands for what he is, metaphorically: “a burr under their saddle.”

The “their” stands for Delaware’s Sussex County Council.

I found out about Dan on SunshineReview.org, which not long ago honored him as Sunshine Troublemaker of the Week. A local paper’s profile on the semi-retired bean farmer filled in some fascinating details.

He sits near the back of the room, and, before meeting’s end, he stands up to introduce himself. “This is Dan Kramer,” he explains . . . but doesn’t really need to. In Sussex County he’s attended more meetings than even the elected officials.

The paper calls him an ombudsman . . . and that fits, for his telephone answering machine sports an interesting outgoing message: “Your problem is my problem,” it intones.

And, by going to every meeting, he can help. His voice carries weight.

He carries a copy of the Freedom of Information Act to every meeting. And he’s a stickler on a number of subjects. “People call me a watchdog,” he admits, but goes on to clarify: “I’m really a junkyard dog who will bite you in the gasket.”

My kind of troublemaker.

I hope you have someone like him in your area. If you don’t, the position is yours to take. According to Dan Kramer, the rewards are many.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Congressman Randy Kuhl has the right idea. Or half of it.

His notion is to let constituents help him choose the bill he will introduce in the Congress this fall. It’s part of what he calls the “Fix Washington” Project. Most people think Washington is broken. So Congressman Kuhl wants constituents to tell him how it might be fixed.

Voters in his district were invited to submit their suggestions for legislation that might put DC back together again. He received four hundred suggestions. Of these, he picked five for everybody to vote on. Some of the proposals make me think that my idea of fixing Washington isn’t always the same as other people’s idea of fixing Washington. But I like number five: term limit the Congress.

The proposed term limits are kind of weak, capping the tenure of both senators and House members at twelve years. And I doubt such a bill would get past square one with this Congress. But sure, let’s go for it. At this moment, the winning proposal hasn’t been announced. But I’m rooting for term limits.

I’m also rooting for a way to give all voters a chance to propose and even pass laws statewide, locally, nationally. Twenty-four states have the right of citizen initiative, which enables voters to end-run the stonewalling of their sometime representatives. Let’s make that possible everywhere.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

The presidential candidates talk about leadership and change. What’s the one question that combines both, but is not asked? Simple: What happens if it all comes crashing down?

After the worst stock market drop since 9/11, the question doesn’t seem so out of place. Our federal government’s debt is rising fast. Even if we balanced the budget tomorrow, the government would have a deep, multi-trillion dollar debt. Trillions and trillions, you might say.

So, Mr. Obama; so, Mr. McCain — what do you do when the Treasury can’t find anyone to invest in all the debt we have created, and must maintain? What do we do when the compounding of interest and increased deficits make monthly maintenance impossible?

Neither of you have even suggested a balanced budget early in your first term. So what do you do when our credit goes crunch?

Add to this the federal government’s obligations to the citizenry, in the form of Social Security retirements and Medicare and pensions and such, and what can you do?

How do you stave off — or, if not, survive — a worldwide depression?

The scenario is not fantastic. Just look at current figures and crunch the numbers.

So, what would Senators Obama and McCain say? I’d be curious what Bob Barr and Ralph Nader would say, too. Have they thought of the possibility?

This is one question that sure would make the upcoming debates interesting.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.