With one week to go, my mind's made up on this year's ballot, but for those who are still undecided, a little help in finest of American traditions.  Peer pressure.  

Everyone's different.  Some of you want to be the sheep in the crowd.  Others will want to be the rebel without a cause.  Just like with arbritrary statistics, there's something for everyone and it all depends on how you want to frame the question.  

Let's start with possibly respected institutions.  Do you value the Union-Tribune's endorsements, or would you use them as a guide for what to vote against?  Same question for the alphabet soups of the AARP, ACLU, CTA, SDTA, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.  You're in luck.  The UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies library maintains a chart of this year's statewide ballot initiatives indexed by the endorsements and recommendations of 42 different media organizations and other groups.  

On the other hand, we all know that money talks in an election cycle.  Maybe your neighbor or supervisor doesn't like yard signs, or just won't talk politics.  That's no excuse for not knowing their preferences.  Many campaign contributions are reportable to the government, and the magic of the internet has made that information accessible from the nearest desktop.  Campaignmoney.com is one of several sites offering campaign contribution data, allowing random people on the internet to search by name or just browse their zip code to see who supported whom financially.  

I've been a big fan of these types of sites since seeing the impact of the KnowThyNeighbor project a few years ago, and really wish that project (or a similar effort) included data on the current effort to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.  Public disclosure laws can only make a difference when public records become truly accessible.

Just remember that while your ballot might be secret, at least until someone succeeds in the effort to mandate printed receipts that your supervisor, union official or spouse can demand to see, little else is.  This is the information age.

When I sat down to write about the Mayoral race in Coronado, I thought I was going to tell a story of five dedicated public servants who wanted to serve their fellow townspeople.  Traditionally, local Coronado political races have been non-partisan with the common goal being the good of the community.  Factions haven't always agreed; and as in nearly every community in America, balancing development against the quality of life for the residents has been an issue.

In researching this race, however, I have witnessed so much elitist economic profiling, gay baiting, Rovian Disinformation, religious crusading, greed, smugness, and blatant grandiose posturing, I find there is enough material for a pulp novel. Throw in Loyalty Oaths from the San Diego County Republican Party and you've got a sad story about the destruction of civic health of a small town.

While the election is still officially nearly one month away, in reality it is much, much closer.  As in 'the call is coming from inside the house' is closer.  Yes, for many of us, the election is here - my husband and I are both registered as permanent vote-by-mail voters.

In San Diego County, ballots to the absentee voters have been mailed out.  Voting at the Registrar of Voters office in Kearny Mesa started Monday, and an estimated 200 voters cast their ballots that day.

Just over 60 percent of all the ballots cast in San Diego County in the June election were cast by absentee voters.  Five million people statewide, nearly a third of the 16.1 million registered voters in California, are scheduled to receive their ballots by mail. 

But what does that do for the late campaigning?  We just finally got our No on 8 yardsigns in the mail last week.  We get deluged daily with requests for more money to fund the last minute campaigning between now and Election Day.  There are all kinds of rumored plans or possibilities for different events in the upcoming months to change media focus and create publicity one way or another.  Haven't heard them?  Most aren't worth repeating on KPBS' website, but just Google '[candidate] October surprise' and giggle at the results.

But does that last minute push still work with the rise in early voting?  If a candidate or issue is leading 55 percent  to 45 percent in October, and 30 percent of the voters vote along those lines, the change on momentum must be so profound that of the remaining 70 percent of the voters, nearly 54 percent adopt what was previously the minority position.

Political advertisements on both sides of the aisle often strain credibility.  It can be tough appearing humble when you have the drive and determination necessary get within a couple of hanging chads of being leader of the free world.  But what does it say about you when you place paid advertisting proclaiming yourself the winner of a debate that hasn't happened yet?  I think Chez at Deus Ex Malcontent has the question right, but whether the source of problem lies with the candidate or his organization the fact that the advertisements ran reflects very poorly on the candidate's credibility and capacity to run the nation.

Hopeful, fearsome, Riefenstahlian propaganda or choreography of the new world order -- the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics were nothing if not overwhelming. The conventions have a tough primetime act to follow. No sky jogging, no LEDs, no day-glo lycra -- just a man, a mic, and a message. Obama will surely deliver a rousing speech, McCain will sleepwalk through a wooden Minneapolis extravaganza; and then we'll go right back to flash polls and daily sniping.

Made for TV spectacle has a death grip on presidential politics. This is no novel claim or original discovery, but it feels particularly sad and final this time around. Careerist pundits are set on full-thrust vomit mode, so that even the occasional insight is tough to take. Ideas are not valued. Those millions and millions of dollars raised by both candidates need to be spent, and network and cable channels will oblige with a guaranteed ninth inning thriller. 

Just like the O.J. trial created junkies for courtroom entertainment; we now crave the adrenaline rush of the 2000 Gore/Bush election. Both campaigns, the press, poll workers, vote counters and voting machine manufacturers all know that anything goes and anything can happen. What parts of this election will end up in a courtroom? I don't need hope in a candidate as much as I need renewed hope in the process. Any more punditry on my part and the self loathing will finally be unbearable.  So...

One way it’s tough to evaluate candidates for office as a voter is from looking at their personal religious beliefs.  Thanks to the First Amendment, we have a secular civil government.  That may be right or wrong, and I know some readers here would argue for wrong, but that's the way the Founding Fathers set up the system of checks and balances, and that's the way the system has worked most of the time during last two centuries. 

Personally, I don't think a person's religious beliefs are part of the equation unless they choose to make them so.  I prefer to look at their proposed policies, and the conclusions about politics and law they reach as a result of those beliefs.  A candidate's experience in implementing policies, and success in competently managing programs, are more important to me than his or her source of inner strength in reaching those accomplishments.

I don't think the topic is off limits though.  It can be very interesting, and telling, to see the labels a candidate can slap on himself in an effort to ingratiate to a specific voting block.  From my perspective, the contortionist act generally backfires.  The more a person's claimed devoutness becomes the central part of their proffered character, the tougher it becomes to see past personal deviations from that claimed faith, like infidelity, eating shrimp, and wearing white after Labor Day.

I wanted to look at Barack Obama's heritage, if I may. 

Obama is half-Kenyan and half-Caucasian. He may self-identify as "African-American," but his heritage really has very little in common with most African-American blacks.

His ancestors were not slaves, but were actually free Africans from the opposite side of the continent. It's similar to comparing someone whose family is from Norway and someone whose family came from Austria. Same continent, but two completely different cultures. 

But, the society that we live in seems to believe that if you have any 'black' heritage in your bloodline, then you ARE black - despite the fact that such thinking is outdated.

Thanks to Salon.com (who are spies like me and listen to right-wing talk shows to wrap the liberal mind around Republican dogma), a Fox News story, inspired the appropriate response of "how tacky" from Obama supporters and non-entrenched GOP voters alike. Along with other stories, the Obama camp has now responded in kind.

The Fox News story about Michelle Obama, accompanied by popular conservative blogger Michelle Malkin (using her best pundit-savvy voice), ran a caption stating "Stop Making fun of Obama's Baby Mama." 

Now, the irony of identifying the Democratic candidate's wife of 16 years, a Harvard trained attorney and professional in her own right, as the mere vessel of Obama's lineage a few days after the New York Times' headline story about her impeccable grace, style, and elegance is vintage smear-machine Fox News. The tongue-in-cheek, satirical tone of "Faux News," as it's commonly referred to in liberal parlance, often turns straightforward news stories into Saturday Night Live skits. 

Sure, for any sticklers saying "what's wrong with the caption?" Senator Obama's wife is in fact the mother of their two children. But, Fox News' use of the phrase "Baby Mama" clearly diminishes Michelle Obama's role in the senator's life as well as minimizing Senator Obama's role in his kids' lives. 

Walking to the local precinct this morning, my husband and I took in the early hours of our bustling suburban neighborhood. Where we live, there are two main neighborhoods within walking distance. One direction heads toward the very fashionable, fun and well-manicured homes surrounding Adams Avenue. The other direction heads toward the mostly working-class and urban City Heights area, where our voting precinct was assigned.

Leading up to today's race, I noticed a difference between these two neighborhoods -- besides the curbside appeal of immaculate lawn care -- in the disparity of political yard signs from one area to the next.

Near Adams Avenue, I'd guess the majority of homeowners displayed their political choice for not only the mayor's seat, but also for whom they favored as district representatives and even as judge and city attorney. This morning's walk of six blocks to our polling place revealed one lonely purple and white sign favoring Todd Gloria, and nothing else.

Can the difference in outspoken support for one's choice of candidates be attributed to lower income and working class citizens not being as interested in local politics?

Has your first impression of someone ever turned out to be wrong? 

I hate admitting such things -- like the time in high school I misjudged an intelligent and well-connected scion for a nerd with nothing interesting to say.

It may be time to say again, I was wrong. After reading Chuck's post about Steve Francis -- the independently wealthy mayoral candidate funding his own campaign -- I thought, "Why does this man (Steve, not Chuck) think he can step into the public sector and do well?" 

It drives me kind of nutty when successful businesspeople try to impress voters with their cash and business acumen. 

Admitting I wrote off Steve Francis may not be the same as admitting I was a near-sighted fool in high school. Then again, it may be better to slow down and give some credit where it's due.