This time the trend has resulted in the ridiculous spectacle of the candidates already assembling at the starting line -- literally the day after the elections for the US Congress was held last November. By now, the leading candidates for both the Republican and Democratic parties are actively fund-raising, forming election committees, and even going out on campaign trails. There seems to be a long, long road ahead for all of them.

One obvious reason for the hurry is, of course, money. It is estimated that each candidate will spend $1billion on the presidential election this time. To raise this huge amount of money in order to stay in the race, one needs to do it better and quicker than others.

So, in the race to get in touch with the right people to get money, each of the candidates is desperately trying to outdo the others. It doesn't end there. Also, the quicker a candidate gets his or her act together, the brighter are the chances for media coverage -- another indispensable ingredient for success.

On the Democrat side, the supposed frontrunner for getting the party's nomination is New York Senator, Hillary Clinton. If she gets the nod, every presidential election since 1980 will have had either a Clinton or a Bush as a presidential or vice-presidential candidate: George Bush senior, Bill Clinton, George W Bush and then Bill's better half (yet only South Asian politics is characterised or stigmatised as dynastic politics by Western commentators!).

Hillary is in the bizarre situation of having both, the advantage of having an incredibly famous and politically savvy hubby and the disadvantage of being associated with a controversial personality who is responsible for the proliferation of some of the raging problems, particularly in the Middle East.

One can also mention her draconian sanction in Iraq, and the undoing of the Oslo process through infamous second Camp David. In addition, a lot of people find Hillary herself harsh and cold. She is, however, a formidable candidate, and in a recent opinion poll she was ahead of other candidates.

But Illinois Senator Barack Obama, an African-American, may make Hillary's path difficult. Obama's assets are his unique background of having a Kenyan father and white American mother, his charisma and, interestingly, his comparative lack of political experience.

If either Hillary or Obama wins the nomination, and subsequently the election, it will be historic. Because neither a woman nor an African-American has been ever elected to the highest office in the US.

Other candidates are trying to catch up with the duo, notably former North Carolina Senator, and John Kerry's 2004 vice-presidential running mate, John Edwards. He displayed a bit of the Kennedy touch in the election.

On the Republican side, there are two very interesting figures. Arizona Senator John McCain is a Vietnam veteran who spent more than five years in a Vietnamese prison. Thanks to his maverick political stance, he is more popular with the public than with the Republicans.

His main challenger is former New York city mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, whose major claim to fame is that he was in charge during the 9/11 Twin Tower disaster, and managed to convey an image of steadfastness and decisiveness. His arrogant disposition, however, neutralises these attributes.

Sadly, the election process in the United States has been corrupted by big money. Whoever pays the piper, calls the tune -- the saying goes. Although there are strict campaign finance laws in the books, the corporations and rich people always find ways around them. However, the election in the US is tainted by only one M -- money power, unlike in our clime where two Ms -- money and muscle power -- dominate the election.

As a result, in the US the campaigns are often rapid, antiseptic exercises that are distinctly issue-free, with the 1996 Clinton-Bob Dole presidential face-off perhaps being the best recent example. On the flipside however, none of the shenanigans that characterise elections in our part of the world are experienced. So, there is no election violence, no booth capturing, almost no voter intimidation, and no large-scale vote buying.

What, however, matters in a campaign in the US, and will again matter in the future, is the charm of the candidate rather than his party affiliation. Ronald Reagan's key to success was that he combined an avuncular folksiness with an impression of toughness. That was the major reason for which a lot of people voted for him, even when they disagreed with him on several issues.

Bill Clinton, perhaps the most charming and consummate political personality of his generation, carried the day in his own right, but failed to pass on the charm he possessed to his wife. If one of the prospective candidates can develop that charm during the course of his or her interaction with the public, the electoral politics of the great country will surely get back its luster.

Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.