I'm right there with you Dr Guy, right there with you.

I vote for the individual, not the party, but I've had a very tough time stomaching placing any votes for any Democrats in the last several years.  I've voted for a few here and there, but the crap they've pulled along the lines has not come close to earning my votes or made me feel that I should waste a vote for them again in the future.  Examples include Babs Mikuwlski who made me loath the vote almost as quickly as I placed it for her.

If the Democrats would run candidates of honor, rather than the schemers and power hungry panderers that they regularly run, I might, just might, be able to vote for a few more.  Instead, many times my vote goes for 'none of the above' as I see sacrificial lamb Republicans run against these automatic vote getters (in my sorry liberal state) and can't bring myself to vote for them either because I know they don't stand a chance of competing and because many times they are a complete whack job that shouldn't have gotten a nomination at all.

If the Democrats would run candidates of honor, rather than the schemers and power hungry panderers that they regularly run, I might, just might, be able to vote for a few more. Instead, many times my vote goes for 'none of the above'

I dont fool myself into believing that the Repubs are any different.  But NOTA is ofren the repub.

I guess the Europeans are right.  We really dont have  a choice.  A bunch of losers or a bunch of liars.

Sounds familiar.

The press has made it more than clear, they are the willing probaganda arm of the Democrat party.... period. So all we can do is watch their ratings and relevants fade into the cesspool. It's too bad, the bacteria, feces and diseases in the cesspool don't deserve that.

The press has made it more than clear

The press coverage for the Dems is not favoring them or against them; it's simply a matter of rating and circulation. Please admit that it is historical that a woman and a black man are running for president--that's a hell of story and people are interested. That's it; no FOX news leanings--MSM is "fair and balanced." Also be honest: aren't the Rebublican candidates pretty damned dull?

Oh, I'll go along with you that there have been some pretty dull republican candidates.. I mean, the Republicans did run Bob Dole. The thing is though, Al Gore is 3 times as dull as Dole, yet the press told everyone to be excited about him.

I'm not just talking about elections here though. The press refuses to run any copy of a positive story coming out of Iraq. The New York Times has been caught time and time again lying for the DNC. Anything said by Prs. Bush is considered propaganda and edited down, while anything said in video by Bin Laden is put out in its entirety. Every word that spews from Bin Laden's mouth is considered on the level. Anything MoveOn.Org says is reported as gospel... and now we learn that they even tried to give MoveOn.org over $100,000 discount on a full page ad.

Here in Wisconsin, the governor put in a bill that will double the tax burdon on the people here, over 1500 examples of voter fraud, Democrats on the payroll of the Kerry campaign get caught vandalizing cars at the Republican Party offices, the governor lies about the republican running against him, the press finds out about it and DEFENDS him.

With Hurricane Katrina, the press passed on every rumor that came within earshot, even after they were proven to be wrong. Anything that went to the total lie that Prs. Bush was to blame for how bad the response and recovery. None of the facts about how Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco's total disregard for the disaster response protocols was EVER reported. In fact, the press even went so far as to congratulate the areas hit by Hurricane Rita for learning lessons from Hurricane Katrina... when the press knows that the areas hit by Rita didn't change their plans in the least between Katrina and Rita.

YOu can put blinders on if you want, but until I see the press willing to cover up and lie for Republicans the way they do for Democrats, the truth is plain to see.

this is not the first time a woman or a black has run for office. in fact the first woman that i know of who ran was black. or i could say that the first black that i know of was a woman. but she was either a libertarian or green party i don't remember.

but she was either a libertarian or green party i don't remember.

No, she was a democrat, but not taken seriously.  Shirley Chisolm.

Personally I don't see how it's any less racist to vote for someone because they are Black than to refuse to vote for them for the same reason. The press should be ashamed of themselves for lying about being unbigoted, while at the same time being the major force for perpetuating institutionalized racism in our society.

there is no difference.

No, there is not.

I dunno...I can think of one reason to vote for Obama.

HE'S NOT HILLARY!

Right now, I'm an Oprah fan because of her support for Obama. If anyone can undermine the Clinton machine, Oprah can.

True.

Despite his mis-steps, and I guess I am a victim of his charisma, I still like the guy. I would love to play a round of golf with him, or BBQ on our deck one saturday afternoon. But I just dont agree with most of his positions.

But one thing is certain. I trust him a lot more than I do Hillary. if that was the only choice - Obama or Hillary - I would vote for him in a heart beat.

As well it should. But I am not calling it quits yet. I still hold out hope that perhaps and maybe, things will change before I die. I easily could have supported the democrats prior to HHH. That was when they left the reservation.

Whether you (royal) with the above, or not. The truth is it is happening. The MSM is becoming more and more irrelevant. If they are neutral, as some want to beleive, or biased, as others do, the simple fact remains. Fewer and fewer people are relying on them for FACTS.