I often overlook local election issues in favor of presidential races and state propositions - and my guess is, many people do the same. Despite receiving a "Voting Guide for Republicans" in the mail each election, I do my research on the issues rather than blindly fill out my ballot with the guide's recommendations. (I do wonder sometimes how many people use political party guides as command rather than recommendation. My recommendation is do a little research on an issue or don't vote on it at all.)

But researching local candidates is often tedious. Here in Vista, we are electing Vista Unified School District governing board members. And I do care - aside from working towards being a public school teacher myself, I may one day have children in the Vista Unified School District - but even after looking over candidate bios, I find few meaningful ways to distinguish the candidates.

Elizabeth Jaka is a "community volunteer" who seeks to "provide quality educational programs that will give our children the tools they need to succeed in the 21st century." Sounds great! Steve Lilly is a retired educator who wants to see "increased student learning" and assessments that "provide teachers and principals timely data on student performance" (what a concept - tests that indicate performance). Also noble! Angela Chunka wants to give students access to the latest technology and close the achievement gap - no argument here! Stephen Guffanti and Eileen Fernandez want to see students reading and writing English at grade level - a no-brainer, right?

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.

Matthew Dowd, who led President Bush's campaign for reelection in 2004, recently told the New York Times that "The only things that are going to change the equation of the election are the four debates." This is due to the plethora of partisan and biased media sources that the public is confronted with every day. As Dowd pointed out, "The average person has 90 channels. They get all the dot-coms. They all get a newspaper. There is so much flow of information that they just begin to discount it all."

And for that, we can breathe a sigh of relief, although I fear that Dowd might give the average person too much credit in saying the media will be depreciated. But if the most influential factor in this election will be the candidates' own voices - through debates and interviews - then I hope the moderators and interviewers will break with the improprieties of the past several months and truly give both sides an even playing field.

Did you hear me on the "These Days" earlier this week, dear readers? I hope you did, as it was fun being on the show with Alma! We talked about what could be the end of the race for the main party seats, among other topics. Overall, I'm happy with how it turned out.

But, let's face it, American politics is a bit tame, compared to other places.

The worst thing we have is controversy over using Obama's middle name. A little silly, really, when people can buy 'Obama Bin Laden' shirts on the internet already. Is this a sign of what is to come in the coming weeks? I sure hope not.

But, over in Russia, as they are also dealing with a presidential election, we have Vladimir Zhirinovsky! Ah, this candidate is quite interesting. Two weeks ago, he was in a debate with one of the party members. Thanks to a friend from Russia, I know what they are saying.