If ever pressed to name a distinction we enjoy by going to school in cold, snowy central Iowa, we can say, at least until late January, that we are the center of the political world and enjoy the luxury of having the country’s top politicians stumbling over one another to impress us.

Yes, because of our caucuses, some potential leaders of this country have taken up residence here — at least until Jan. 19, at which time they will disappear, never to be seen again.

Aside from these meager bragging rights, the candidates’ presence here affords us something very rare and altogether important — the chance to make an educated decision and a difference in the future of national politics.

Some Democratic presidential candidates have catered to this opportunity of ours more so than others and, not surprisingly, are the front-runners because of it. The top four candidates, — Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt and John Kerry — have politicked endlessly here, while the other five, who have scarcely set foot in Iowa, are quickly fading into also-ran oblivion.

Last week, Kerry and Edwards both spoke at the Memorial Union, making their cases for the right to represent the Democratic Party, Iowa and America.

In his presentation Monday, Kerry made a poor case for any of these institutions.

Questions were rightfully raised after the firing of his campaign manager and the awkwardness that followed last month. If a man can’t keep his campaign tightly organized, what chance does he have to organize and lead the United States? Suspicions aroused about Kerry’s competency were only heightened after his speech here Monday. The senator spoke before 800 people, most of whom were either students or senior citizens. To this crowd he said, in a great many more words, “I have great ideas on education, health care and every other pertinent issue in this campaign, but I’m not going to talk about them. Instead I’m going to talk extemporaneously on the evils of the Patriot Act.” And then, with an offhand referral to his Web site, he did.

Now, it should be a given that any Democrat — or any conscious American — thinks the Patriot Act is evil and wants it repealed. So is it really necessary to devote an entire speech to it? No, especially when the finale of that speech is the admission of voting in favor of the act. Kerry was on a college campus, speaking to hundreds of senior citizens and students. What better place to stump his plans for health care and education? Isn’t it common sense to speak on issues that are pertinent and focused on the audience present? A whole speech dedicated to a bill that expires in a year and would be immediately repealed by any Democrat elected is a filibuster and an easy play on emotions that hides confusion of the real issues in this election.

Edwards, conversely, was forthright in confronting campaign issues in his speech last Wednesday. Like Kerry’s, his speech carried a central theme: that special interests and lobbies should be thrown out of Washington. Unlike Kerry, Edwards convincingly tied every important campaign issue to this theme.

Without health care and insurance lobbies, according to Edwards, affordable health care issues could be solved. Without banking lobbies, better student loans and affordable education could be possible.

Beside these two issues, which will require little more than a Democrat in office to solve, all of our current problems are symptoms of one disease: energy.

Without oil and energy lobbyists in Washington (or employees in the White House, as the case may be) offering campaign donations in exchange for tax breaks and favorable legislation, our dependence on oil would be diminished, affecting several key issues, according to Edwards. If we were to end our dependence on oil from Arab countries, we would cut funding to the terrorist activity that Bush has perpetuated and coerced us to live in fear of. Ending this dependence also helps put an end to the root of terrorism: our exploitation of Arab resources and our constant, self-serving intervention into their politics because of those resources.

Secondly, implementing a new infrastructure of alternate energy — wind, solar, water, biomass, etc. — would create millions of jobs, solving the unemployment issues created by the poor economy and the Bush administration’s policies. Finally, in addition to the peace, international relations and economic benefits, alternative fuel sources would improve the environment.

All this begins, as Edwards sees it, with kicking Big Oil and the other lobbyists out of Washington.

It’s a pretty convincing argument.