Plato's views on Democracy in the Republic

I have recently read Republic by Plato. I was astounded by the accuracies of works that were written 2500 years ago. I visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York recently and seeing the ancient Greek artifacts from Plato's time truly put his writings in perspective. The artifacts, while beautiful in their own right, had no business occupying the life of such a profound mind whose writings are so applicable in a world light years in the future. How have they managed to stay so pertinent for so long? I have an answer: he writes not to a problem or situation (which may become outdated), but to the very essence of the situation as it relates to human nature. His criticisms of democracy ring as true now as they did all the way back then. This raises a whole new question: if the flaws of democracy are not ironed out after 2500 years, will they ever be, or is this as good as it gets?
Plato basically says that the ideal of so much freedom in society is not bad, but because of the human nature to get away with as much as possible, the lazy only use this freedom to be free of everything and do nothing.
Also, we dont trust our country to men raised and taught to lead our country, but instead to men of normal occupations who just take their 4 year turn at the helm. How effective is this?
He also states that men in power can not do what is best for the country, and instead become slaves either to the mass' whims and desires or become corrupt and use office for their own personal goals (bush, cheney). Thoughts?
i apologize for any pertinent criticisms by Plato in the Republic that I left out and welcome any additions.

It does make you wonder. I think you might enjoy reading his Gorgias, as well, which with its arguments against rhetoric and how it can be used to sway the masses, ties in nicely with his over all view on the incapacity of the masses to rule.
The way things are today would only seem to confirm many of Plato's arguments, just off the top of my head some of the silly stuff that seems to make a difference on masses of people: extra-marital affairs, boxers or breifs, fashionable glasses, lapel pins, the fact that children disagree and rebel against their parents (??? - come on, that one is at least as old as Plato himself, who refused to participate in his family's ogliarch rule over Athens).
No one ever asks what any of these things actually have to do with making policy, and the media treats all these things as being on equal par with questions of war, freedom, energy, taxes, etc.
On the other hand, where are we going to find a philosopher-king?
One possible solution, one that Plato would probably agree with, would be to force the entire population to read, study and discuss the Republic. But then that would interfere with people's personal freedom and may give rise to radical anti-philolospher-terrorist groups.
I better quit now before my imagination runs any further.