A vote against politics of money

New Hampshire's much touted "first in the nation" primary is over, with voters in Granite State delivering a stunning rebuff to the politics of money.

Never has the contrast been so sharp - Texas Governor George W. Bush, with a slush fund of nearly $60 million, opposed by Arizona Sen. John McCain, a champion of campaign finance reform, with barely $15 million. And seldom has the margin of victory - McCain 49 percent, Bush 31 - been so wide.

Although there were differences on taxes and wishy-washy bobbing and weaving on the question of a woman's right to choose, it was McCain's ability to parley his military career and the image of an outsider who "tells it like it is" into a winning campaign that won the election.

There should be no illusions about the race for the GOP nomination. None of them, and that includes McCain, are an answer to the needs of the nation.

All would use the White House as a bully pulpit to further the cause of reaction. Both would load the federal court system with another generation of right wingers in the mold of Anthony Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor or Clarence Thomas. None would lead campaigns to redirect our nation's priorities.

Differences were less sharp on the Democratic side. Vice President Al Gore's paper thin margin of 52-47 percent, coupled with Bush's defeat, upset the apple cart of conventional wisdom and all but guarantees that the primary campaigns in both parties are far from over.

The next test, one that could finalize things, is March 7 when a dozen states, including New York and California, hold primary elections.

Five weeks is a long time in an election campaign and offers plenty of opportunity to raise issues and hold candidates' feet to the fire, to force them to discuss the economic and social issues that confront the nation. In our view, that's what elections are all about.