@Malakai, there are very good systemic reasons why a mature democracy ends up as a two party system with little to distinguish them. If you think about the strategy for getting elected, and what maximizes your chances of getting elected, you could probably figure it out yourself.
In the beginning of a democracy (like many in eastern Europe now), there are lots of parties. Fairly rapidly, parties like one another combine, in order to get a larger share of the vote. Generally, this continues over the years with combination after combination, until we’re down to two parties.
Now each party tries to put itself as close to the center as it can. What it wants is a majority, and so you take up your half (right or left of center) and then you try to be moderate enough to snag more of the center undecideds than the opposition. This can be hard to do, because the electorate can throw a monkey wrench into the works. Party zealots might select a candidate that is too far from center.
The Republicans did a great job of it this year. McCain is the closest to a moderate they had, and he was selected. I was really hoping he wouldn’t get elected, and that someone far more right wing would have won.
However the Democrats, as they often do, made a mistake. They selected, in my opinion, the more liberal of the two candidates. Thus making for a more difficult battle.
So this is no conspiracy. This is a natural, human process. The parties inevitably end up close together, but not so close as it doesn’t make a huge difference. Clinton did a lot of good for the country using executive power. Bush learned, and used executive power to nearly destroy the country. Who know what the electorate, in its wisdom will decide this time.