I watched the CNN series "Revealed" on both Obama and McCain last night. What a difference between how CNN and FOX portrayed them! CNN was much more even handed with both candidates and it was hard to detect if one was being favored over the other. A few thoughts:

Both Obama and McCain have amazing life stories.

Obama had many chances to earn big money but instead chose to serve his community.

McCain was cheating with multiple women over a period of several years and ultimately got married about a month after his divorce was finalized.

McCain graduated 5 spots up from the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy.

McCain's wife financed his initial bid to run for Congress.

McCain is rumored to have gave serious thought about changing his status to a Democrat after the 2000 primary election.

And, my personal opinion is that conservatives are being sold a bill of goods on McCain. I don't think he's nearly as conservative as he's attempting to sell himself as. Conservatives have good cause to question whether he's conservative enough.

The Fox series was much more tabloid than CNN. But then again, they are catering to their audience.

I will be sitting out this election. IMO there are two demo's. running. McCain is a conservative traitor. I hope Obama wins. at least he's honest about his positions.

What makes you sit out?

This is why I like CNN. Unlike Fox and MSNBC, they seem authentically balanced. Unfortunately, their ratings are not great. I don't know what that says about today's political climate.

I don't think anyone should sit this of all elections out but thats your choice.

I respect both men.

I watched both revealed specials this morning. I now want to see the FOX versions (I think however I may need to double up on my blood pressure meds that day though to prevent my blood from boiling)

I think it says that most people seek affirmation.

That's the beauty of News'tainment!

I also think people will entertain advocacy, but only in the context of a story or theme they find compelling.

CNN just, for the most part, puts it out there for people to be informed and ponder.

Pondering is hard!

Much better to present it as a story, joke, whatever and then people compare, contrast, weigh and judge and both the facts and a message gets through.

Personally, I have ZERO problem with more of that occurring. If I have a choice between a newscast in the traditional sense and "The Daily Show", it's absolutely no contest! Daily show wins, and I'm entertained and informed.

Clarity is a factor though. I also think, if we are gonna encourage that, or if it's just gonna happen, then clarity needs to be up front and center in the priorities.

These kinds of programs, where clarity is low, then become less than informative, even though they remain seriously entertaining, and that's a problem in that the decisions people make based on that "entertainment" are highly likely to not be genuine.

Instead of sitting it out or leaving the Presidential space blank, why not write-in a third party candidate? Maybe one of these days more people will do that and one of them that actually reflect what the country wants to see (not what a bunch of campaigning folks say they're going to do but won't) wins!

If you hope Obama wins, then you should vote for him. Make your vote count.

Newflyer I think we (as in a whole as populace) are closer to embracing third party canidates now better than ever before.

Both parties are really I feel in a rebuilding mode the republicans more so than the democrats but there are so many people out there that are so fed up on different issues.

I am not as positive on the idea as I was earlier in the year but I feel as though in many ways the GOP is to a point where there is strong possibilities of a permanent split up of the party.

You have the internal fight between the moderates and the evangelicals that is very heated and could possibly come to the boiling point if McCain doesn't pick someone who pleases the evangelical wing of the party.

It's pointless to embrace third parties in a two-party system, because we now have a de facto two party system. Look at all the promising-at-the-time third parties that got some attention then vanished. Remember Ross Perot's party he started in 1992? Hear of them lately? How about the Green Party that Ralph Nader so famously promoted in 2000? Think they are going places?

You want third parties? You need to change the system to accommodate them. In presidential elections, for example, get rid of the electoral college and move to a system of popular vote elections where the top two vote getters would be in a run-off if no one gets over 50% of the vote. Then everyone can vote for their favorite 3rd-party candidate if they wish and not worry about throwing away their vote.

Remember, if no candidate gets 270 electoral votes today because too many candidates split up the vote, then the House of Representatives picks the president, and that's just going to be a Democrat in 2008. That should change.

Andrew

If you hope Obama wins...
Actually, no I don't. It would be great if neither major candidate won.

It's pointless to embrace third parties in a two-party system, because we now have a de facto two party system.
This is the type of rhetoric that keeps this going on as long as it has.

Democrats are not the solution to Republicans.

Republicans are not the solution to Democrats.

We've been voting based on two parties for years, bashing others because they don't like someone's religion or divorce record or whatever.

Whatever.

Just tonight I spoke at a town hall-type meeting and suggested that if Democrats really represented what the American populace wants, the troops would be home, now. Enough of this "timeline" garbage. Not as much as an applause from any of the other probably 60 other people there.

Both parties do very little for real people, while they get paid huge sums by many of the same interests.

As examples:
Republicans get paid by corporations, headed by executives who make big bucks.
Democrats get paid by unions, headed by executives who make big bucks.

Yes, the "big bucks" is the common theme here. Same thing, just different name of the organization.

While I'm at it, another thing with this whole "Open Primary" nonsense. This still does nothing. If they really want to open the primaries, then candidates shouldn't have to have a nomination or OK, they should be able to head on down to the filing office, complete the necessary paperwork, pay the filing fee, and they're on the ballot, just like City of Portland or Multnomah County elections (which are both nonpartisan, BTW). If ten people each get exactly 10% of the vote, then that's voting in its purest form. People should not have to be prompted by someone being the person who's already in office or the person that spent the most money on mailed fliers that end up in the garbage.

Stevethedj sez: "I will be sitting out this election."

Then you probably should sit out coming to this side of the board. We shouldn't be subject to bitching and moaning from people who don't even vote.

Let me ask you this -- did you contribute money trying to get a politican that shares your views nominated? Did you volunteer your time trying to get one nominated? If not, why should we care about your "sit out?"

Two things to remember -- (1) too many people just COMPLAIN about the two party system instead of actually taking action to change it. If you're not going to walk the talk, save it. (2) Majority rules in this country and apparently most people are just fine with the two party system so a really compelling argument for change simply just has not been made yet.

Stevethedj sez: "I will be sitting out this election." If you are not part of the solution ,you are part of the problem" .Hell, you will show everybody by not voting>>>>>>>>>>>.

Well, I think being here is ok, vote or not.

At least being here means the rest of us can pester you to VOTE.

(and please do as no choice is still a choice!)

I supported mitt rhomney(sp). this is the first primary or general election i have missed since 1974. i moved to a new state this year and could not vote in the oregon primary. or the navada one. also i dont see any real differance in either obama or mccain.

With them both being just smooth talkers in nice suits?

Seriously, if there is no difference, then how come you hope Obama wins?

After four years of oboma, the republicans will win next time.imo.and hes a nice guy.

Steve...you're beginning to worry me...we need to talk.

With all due respect, if you think there is no difference between Obama and McCain, you're a blooming idiot. One only needs to review the last 8 years to see just how much elections matter.

And I would agree wholeheartedly that those that don't bother to vote need to stick a cork in their mouth. You have no right to complain about anything if you don't bother to utilize the right others died to guarantee you.

hay stupid, i moved after the deadline to register, to a different state.

Spot on Vitalogy...gotta vote your mind...it's American...lots of other countries you don't have a chance...know you don't like the popular choices...check out the independents running...

Hay is for horses.

Hay is the first stage of horse poop!

Personally, I think there should be a $100 fine that goes to charity, the food bank or some other worthy cause for those that don't vote.

Mandatory voting. Doesn't matter who you vote for, but you must vote.

Maybe they should put a "none of the above" on the ballot for those that don't like any of the candidates.

That's why they have the "write-in" on the ballot.

You too, can vote for Mickey Mouse!

Mickey is the hero in our home...in fact our kitchen has Mickey's all over...Mickey phone, cookie jar to start...vote for the mouse!

Again Broadway we just can't agree on anything can we! If I am writing in a canidate from the Disney party its not gonna be Mickey its gonna be Winnie the Pooh. LOL