Last week, &uot;Super Tuesday&uot; became the political version of kryptonite for two not-so-super men who made the U.S. presidential race more interesting. And that’s a shame.

We do not necessarily believe that either Democrat Bill Bradley or Republican John McCain, who both threw in the towel after last week’s losses, were better choices than front runners Al Gore and George W. Bush. But Bradley and McCain’s presence in the race raised the bar and made Gore and Bush better candidates.

Just as competition in business often benefits the customer, through lower prices or improved services, competition improves political races as well.

More candidates almost always sparks more debate. And debate, when it’s clean and constructive, benefits everyone.

Debate coming from various candidates, each of whom has a unique set of life experiences and opinions, makes all of the collective wisdom of the public more insightful.

Such competitive improvement isn’t merely a national phenomenon. It is clearly evident on the local level too.

We wish all of the city elections were as hotly-contested as the Natchez city clerk’s post and the Ferriday, La., mayor’s race.

Both contests have several viable candidates who through their differences make the race more interesting and bring issues to the forefront. It’s a little disappointing that many races, such as several Natchez aldermen posts and the Natchez mayor’s race, appear to be uncontested. We’re disappointed, not because we think the current office holders need to be ousted, but because without the sharp edge of competition the issues are much harder to define.

We can only assume that the fear of failing at the hands of political kryptonite is what keeps potential candidates from stepping up and qualifying to run for office.

And that is too bad, because the benefits of competition to the public far outweigh the agony of defeat to the individual.