Energy independance.
Immigration and flagrant violation of our laws.
Military pay and benefits.
Education.
Trade imbalance.
Outsourcing.
Bin Laden.
Health care.
Social security mess.

These are my pet issues... and not one of the current crop of wannabes are addressing any of this in the type of detail that informs me that they have thought about the issue.  and they wonder why the voters are malcontent.

because we're still fighting the battles of '00, ie, did he or did he not invent the internet and when did he know it

Malcontent implies that someone is in active opposition to the status quo.  I see more apathy than anything else because no one really seems to give a shit other than to sit around and complain on discussion boards.  

Many of the candidates address these very issues.  But it's difficult to address them in detail when the voting public refuses to listen to any deep discussion of policy details.  It's way too boring.   We live in an age when people would rather engage in the politics of emotion.

In the 2000 presidential election, no one wanted to hear Al Gore go into detailed discussion of policy.  They'd rather hang out and share a beer with George W.  (It's chilling when people tell me they voted for him because he seemed like  a "nice guy.")

Furthermore, people don't want to hear the message when it lies outside their personal comfort zone and conflicts with their perception of reality.  Nor is the general public willing to acknowledge the serious problems we face and the deep sacrifices necessary to resolve them.    A perfect example is the contentious and endless debate over global warming

So much more I could say on this subject, but the one thing I will say (in keeping with your last paragraph) is that I think many people would "like" to talk about many other subjects more, but most "ordinary people" are so strained in the everyday lives...for money, for time, for energy, for faith...that they can't (or won't) go deeper than most of them do anymore.

As such, the candidates adjust their messages accordingly.

Really, we're all caught in the thrall of marketing campaigns. Focus groups and polls tell campaign consultants which words will capture how many votes. The public, as a whole, can't break out of this spell.  

And as so illustrated here, debate over core issues will seldom change people's minds. In other words, it's superfluous. It's not necessarily that a politician doesn't have any strong beliefs. It's just it could be harmful to him or her to reveal them. You basically have to read the tea leaves.

On comfort zones, really political beliefs have to do with the view of the world they've been built on. If you're pro-life due to your religious beliefs, you probably aren't going to change your mind without a total upheaval of your beliefs. Arguing against abortion isn't going to change the person's mind about it. You have to argue about the existence and nature of God, if anything. No single argument over dinner is going to shake this.

Stop whining and do something about it.

that would be the ruin of many candidates save Marry Carrie!  lol!  seriously, many good and well intended folk do not run because of the meat grinder that is the political process and the soul selling that goes on.  Very few who achieve high office are "clean."  Or at least that is my experience with the ones I know (and I know a few- grew up with some who have achieved national attention).

that you can't hire brains, as we see from the last fella who promised that.  And it does take some minimal brains.

no Social Security mess, the fact that you do not read the policy papers or listen to the speeches that the candidates give on these topics does not mean that they do not exist. The problem is that you are waiting for the Tim Russerts, Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzers of the world to talk about something other than the horse race. Sorry but that is not going to happen.

Quite right, JB... all of the candidates have websites where if you REALLY do your due diligence, you might get a somewhat less muddied perspective on their actual positions vis a vis the subject matter at hand for you to determine one way or the other if they are actually saying anything or just rambling on like they do in their public speeches extolling their own sense of values and personal goals for the betterment of the masters somewhere in the dark shadows pulling the strings that you and i can't see because we are too busy wondering if the candidate should wear a red tie blue tie or show cleavage.

Can you tell I was once a political speechwriter?

At least nobody would have to snoop to catch us out. I'll run on that ticket!

and for my money - she looks better than me! lol!

There was the Italian porn actress who actually won a seat in the parliament.

I think prioritizes and has the same goals that I have, actually - they don't even come close....