One of the more overworked expressions in American politics is that the presidential election of that particular year represents a "crossroads," or a "watershed moment." Every four years, it seems, the nation stands at a place where two roads meet, and God help us if we make the wrong choice.

That said, the presidential election of 2004 does stand as one that may go down in history as a landscape-changing event. It is, after all, the first presidential election to be held in the wake of 9/11, and it's not business-as-usual these days. While there is no shortage of domestic issues such as jobs, the economy, the availability of health insurance, stem cell research and others, the significance of this election may lie more in which leader's vision of how the United States should fit into a rapidly changing world is more accurate.

It's not just about the threat of terrorism either. A case can be made that the next major challenge facing the United States is how it relates to and manages the rise of China as a dominant power across Asia. Already its economic influence is huge and growing. Today China recycles much of its earnings into financing America's national debt and its low-cost manufacturing has held down the rate of inflation here. That's often forgotten in the anguish about "lost" manufacturing jobs. But how long China is willing to be America's banker of last resort and how long it will be before China decides to start throwing political clout around to match its economic power is a major question the next administration is going to have to address. Already, Chinese demand for oil has helped drive global oil prices to historically high levels. What happens when everyone in China wants a car and an air conditioner?

In addition, the next administration is going to have to figure out a way of controlling the most dangerous menace unleashed in the age of terror - nuclear proliferation. Scary as the ill-conceived drive by Iran to develop a nuclear capability is, and as truly frightening as the potential for mayhem the kooky government in North Korea poses, both are probably less of a threat than the renegade and stateless terrorist groups on the al-Qaida model, should those dogmatic and one-dimensional organizations get their hands on nuclear material.

Which leads directly into the war in Iraq, which is rightly the dominant issue of the campaign.

Iraq was a war of our own choosing, and it may be plausible to say that two years or so ago different people could reasonably differ over whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Hindsight has since shown that claim to be mistaken. The issue - still unclear - is what the Bush administration and its neo-conservative war hawks knew and when they knew it.

Let's not kid ourselves - we didn't invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. If that was the reason, there are probably dozens of other nations we should invade.

The question then, is which candidate, John Kerry or George Bush, is best positioned to manage the American withdrawal from Iraq in a way that least damages our interests around the world and especially in the Middle East.

The truth of the matter is that neither candidate can bring the troops stationed there home quickly. We're there, and just pulling out and leaving, despite the fact our presence there is part of the problem, is not an option. It took a generation for America's credibility to be restored after the debacle of Vietnam, when our supporters there were left to fend for themselves. If we leave behind Iraqis who have bravely stood with us and hope for a brighter future in the post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, no one in their right mind would take an American government at its word in the future.

Trying to draw any meaningful connection about what a candidate for president says on the campaign trail and what they will actually do once in office can be tricky, but there is a clear difference of emphasis between George Bush and John Kerry.

President Bush may now be warming more to the notion of bringing in the United Nations and "internationalizing" responsibility for helping Iraq get back on its feet. But his stubborn rhetoric and earlier lack of judgment make his task far more difficult than it would be for a new administration unburdened by the self-inflicted wounds of the present administration. Only a new face in the Oval Office is in a position to turn that page and restart a constructive dialogue with America's historic allies and get back on track in the fight against terrorists. Only a real coalition of nations working together is ever going to be effective at coralling the terrorists. With all our awesome power, the United States can't and shouldn't do it alone.

For that reason, we endorse John Kerry, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts.

Not being George Bush may be John Kerry's strongest card in this game. In many other areas, his leeway for action will be sharply limited by a huge and growing federal budget deficit and the likelihood of a Republican-controlled Congress not eager to help him look good. That may not be a bad thing, because some of the statements he has made on the campaign trail about penalizing firms that outsource jobs and other protectionist nonsense are out-of-sync with reality. But then again, the Bush administration has also done its share of "flip-flopping" here too, coming into office vowing to support free trade - the best ticket to a peaceful world - then turning around and pandering to voters in West Virginia and Pennsylvania by slapping protectionist tariffs on foreign steel makers.

And the Bush administration's cavalier approach to the deficit - exemplified by Vice President Richard Cheney's flip remark that "Ronald Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - is outrageous. This is an administration that has come close to turning traditional Republican values of fiscal prudence on its head, running the most spendthrift government since Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society of the 1960s. Deficits do matter, Mr. Cheney - they are going to be paid for by generations of presently younger Americans who will have their hands full financing the healthcare and social security needs of today's middle-aged citizens.

There are numerous other issues the present administration can be held to task - the lack of a clear energy policy and a vision for moving away from dependence on Middle Eastern oil, its unconstructive nixing of the admittedly flawed Kyoto Treaty on global warming, a failure to push Israel hard enough to defuse the standoff with the Palestinians, which is at the heart of what makes the Middle East so explosive, tax cuts that go far beyond what is necessary to stimulate the economy, a dangerous willingness to undermine civil liberties to fight a war on terror its own bumbling mistakes have made more dangerous, and a willingness to use mistruth and distortion on the campaign trail that comes right up to the edge of being outright lying.

We're not sold on John Kerry as being someone who personifies all that is perfect about a presidential candidate. There is much that is missing from the portrait, despite a lengthy record in the Senate. He may well be what so many of his predecessors have been - willing to say whatever is expedient at the time and concerned most of all about staying in office. There are some unanswered questions about his Vietnam service. How many other veterans only served there four months? But Vietnam is not the issue in this campaign. We have a new war to fight.

Kerry is a man who comes across as thoughtful and reflective, which would be a welcome balm after the sharp-edged presidency of George W. Bush. But at some point reflection needs to end and action begin. That will be the test of a Kerry administration, if we are to have one.

The tragedy of George Bush's presidency is that it all could have been so different. After Sept. 11, 2001, the United States was in its strongest position since the end of World War II to lead a global coalition against the perpetrators of the atrocities of that day. That opportunity has been totally squandered. Bush came into office through a disputed election, and instead of interpreting that outcome as the divided wisdom of a nation looking for a unifying president, he chose instead to govern as if he had received a thumping mandate, pushing a right-wing agenda that bore little resemblance to "compassionate conservatism."

It's time for a change. We urge our readers to elect Sen. John Kerry as our 44th president.