It comes as no surprise, but hypocrisy is on parade as the 2004 presidential election begins to heat up.

The latest example is the flap over former Clinton administration national security adviser Sandy Berger, who is being investigated for taking some classified documents related to Clinton administration plans to counter al-Qaida and terrorism threats. For the record, Berger says he "inadvertently" took the documents and most have been returned to the National Archives. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has been looking into the document removal since late last fall.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, pounced on this week's news of the probe saying, "I think it's gravely, gravely serious what he did, if he did it. It could be a national security crisis."

Former President Bill Clinton, commenting on the incident at an autograph session for his new book, did not comment on what Berger has admitted doing; he only talked about the timing of the story's release, suggesting it was suspicious and probably politically motivated.

If a Republican official were under investigation for removing and possibly destroying the same terrorism-related classified information, the reaction from top Republican and Democratic officials would be quite different. Republicans would argue it was a small matter, tainted by political timing. Democrats would be screaming that it was a potential breach of national security and suggesting possible coverup of administration misdeeds.

A similar tempest in a teapot is brewing over third-party presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Considered by most observers to have played a decisive role in the controversial 2000 presidential election when his candidacy drew votes from Al Gore and helped put George W. Bush into the White House, Nader is again being seen by many Democrats as a potential spoiler.

Today, many supporters of Democratic candidate John Kerry are blasting Nader's 2004 presidential campaign as ego-driven and destructive. Republicans, on the other hand, are cheering Nader's efforts and even helping him to get on the ballot in certain battleground states.

But flipping party politics of the Nader controversy reveals more political hypocrisy.

During the 1992 presidential race, when independent candidate Ross Perot was drawing conservative votes from President George H.W. Bush, Democrats supported the invigorating impact of a third-party candidate. Republicans, who feared that Perot would siphon off enough votes to deny Bush a second term in the White House, criticized his run as ego-driven and not good for the country.

On the issue of third-party candidates, it should be noted that they often force major-party candidates to address issues that they might otherwise ignore.

Perot has been credited with putting the issue of the federal budget deficit on the national radar. And this time around, Nader has been sounding alarms about what he views as the dangers of globalization and the insidious effect of the political influence wielded by well-funded special interests on both the Republican and Democratic parties. Nader cannot win, but he can influence the debate.

Finally, political partisanship and hypocrisy are so powerful in America today, that if the Iraq war had been launched by Bill Clinton's administration, it is quite likely that many Republicans and Democrats alike would be looking at the war from a perspective that is 180 degrees opposed to their current position.

If it had been Clinton who removed Saddam Hussein from power, Democrats would be praising the bold action and the elimination of a murderous tyrant from the long-suffering Iraqi people. He might also be praised by supporters for making a dramatic gamble on changing the dynamics of the Middle East by trying to introduce democracy to Iraq.

Alternately, if it were Clinton or Gore who launched the Iraq war, many Republicans now supporting the Bush war effort would be blasting the president for not having a clear exit strategy and for the high cost of this latest and most likely futile nation-building exercise.

The two parties often seem to take opposing views for reasons that seem to have more to do with political posturing and the ability to make partisan points than for some deeply held core value. The only conclusion is that for many Republicans and Democrats core values are flexible. Retaining or regaining power is the only thing that matters.

No wonder cynicism and apathy keep so many voters from the polls.