Like you, I'm interested in the stances the candidates have taken on a variety of issues. Then I'd like to see what they've done in their public careers to support those positions--or not. FactCheck does this for debates and ads. And I always read those. I'd be sure to read comparisons of a candidate's expressed positions with their voting records or other actions. I have a feeling the money frontrunner, Senator Clinton, would fall far short on supporting her own expressed positions. I know she's fallen far short on supporting mine.

What I am absolutely bored to tears with is this constant barrage of stories on fundraising. If that's all there is to this race, count me out!

One thing that I think is misleading, as well as a diversion from actual issues, is the reporting of polling. You might want to double check this, but, if I remember correctly, Jimmy Carter, John Kerry and Bill Clinton were all polling below 4% before the Iowa caucuses and went on to win the nomination. Two became president.

I'm a Ron Paul supporter and I keep reading in the media that "Ron Paul cannot win." Is this a fact or an editorial opinion? If it's a fact, how do they know? They usually back up their contention by referring to a meaningless poll wherein Ron Paul is actually polling better than the aforementioned "losers."

If they insist on reporting these polls -- and they do -- they should also tell us the methodology used in the poll, so that we can judge for ourselves whether it has any meaning at all. This would be cumbersome, of course, and they will never do it, but it would be preferable to what they do now. Who was called? How were they chosen? How were they contacted? What was the question? How do they interpret leaners? What order were the candidates listed? WERE all of the candidates listed? What is the margin of error, (assuming the alleged likely voters all vote)? And so on.

The main problem is that most people tell the pollster that they are a likely voter, but experience tells us that only a small percentage actually do vote. When only a fraction of those polled vote, the poll is rendered meaningless. When the pollsters try to compensate by calling only people who voted in the last election or the primary four years ago, they skew the results. In this case, those would be Bush supporters, who are much less likely to support Ron Paul than average actual voters.

So, intensity of support is more important than whatever the poll numbers say at this point. Ron Paul's supporters WILL turn out to vote.

At this stage, polls are not reliable. Not for Ron Paul. Not for anyone. Yet the media hang on them like they are election results.

The media needs to let candidates talk at length about issues, avoiding misleading soundbites. They need to stop telling us who can and cannot win. That is not only irresponsible, it could very well come back to embarrass them.

I honestly don't think that the media people who report on presidential campaigns want to change their ways. Improving on their reporting by giving the voters useful information would reduce their ability to manipulate the outcome.

Instead of informing us about candidates' positions on issues, the media spends too much time MISinforming us about the candidates' relative chances to win. What is the point of that?

I'm not sure this is what you were looking for, but it is something that really irritates me.

Good open letter at Huffington Post.

Here's another tidbit of information that I find interesting -- where the candidates' money comes from. This should not be dwelled upon too long, but it should at least be mentioned, as it tells us where their support comes from and who the candidates may feel an allegiance to.

You were right that fundraising does not necessarily translate into electability. To understand the fundraising, one must look at where it comes from. Because Ron Paul's money is coming in small donations from average citizens, I think it is more meaningful than the donations that come from Wall Street fat cats and celebrities.

Check out the lists at the web site below. Notice Ron Paul's top donations come from Google, the military and Microsoft, whereas the others get their money from Wall Street. Goldman Sachs tops the lists of several of the Democratic and Republican candidates.

http://rabbit-hole-journey.blogspot.com/2007/11/campaign-contributors-of...

In gaining a more informative reporting style, which I believe is the essential point here, there must be a shift in the role news reporters give for themselves. Especially during important times such as this, discipline and self-awareness must be highly stressed. The pitfalls in reporting are no different than many other occupations, where one can easily be distracted and led astray from the main purpose. So in maintaining this focus, reporters must be weary of judgments, suggestions, or points of influence that do not deal with the issues, and do little but bias the voter decision process.

I have recognized this problem in the disrespect the voters and non top-tier candidates are given by a news media that hastily inserts itself into the question of who is the worthy candidate. The voter has little opportunity to measure the candidate’s worth from the neutral information. The questions mock the candidate's convictions, the statements essentially give the impression of what would be a wasted vote.

Zephyr, I must admit, I saw you on a recent interview program regarding Ron Paul, in which you made the statement that he will not win with such a dismissive arrogance. I could argue how incorrect that statement was, speaking with such authority, but the greater point is the kind of reporting we need to see. We do not need to see that. There is never a point to be made by predicting with such absolute certainty, in any field. Essentially, this cannot be defined as news reporting, but news influencing and voter influencing.

So in having greater resources devoted to more useful reporting, we must cut some of the excess flab in news reporting we currently see.

I appreciate this topic, Zephyr. And I mean no disrespect by it.