I can't believe you are actually airing this show. It would be impossible to invent a topic that is more vapid and idiotic. Ironically, rather than actually cover the ISSUES you have decided to cover the perception of the candidates. NPR makes us stupid and makes the USA less democratic. WHY CAN'T YOU COVER THE ISSUES? WHY CAN'T YOU DISCUSS DIFFERENCES IN CANDIDATES POSITIONS? the USA is not a democracy, it is an ad campaign. it is so pathetic. NPR is anti-American for not giving the electorate a chance to decide who is the best candidate based on their policies. it is sad. and too, it seems that the onion did this same topic a few weeks ago (only, obviously, the onion is satire)

Sent by Joe M. | 2:16 PM ET | 01-07-2008

The reality of our two-party, winner-take-all system, is that once a party nominee is decided, I have no choice who to vote for. For example, I personally would rather take virtually take any democrat over virtually any republican, so unless I want to throw my vote away and vote for a candidate who is not the nominee, I have to accept whomever the party gives me to vote for. If I like Obama best, but Clinton is the nominee, then I have to vote for her, lest the republican win the election.

Sent by Andrew | 2:18 PM ET | 01-07-2008

Gender politics...voting for a woman..because she's a woman? Give me a break. Exactly what kind of woman is Hillary Clinton. She's no feminist to be sure. She's a 'stand by your man-type' who endures her husbands shameless behavior; If it weren't for Bill, Hillary would have nothing..

Sent by Mo | 2:24 PM ET | 01-07-2008

I am afraid that this election will set women back. It is appalling to me to hear the blatantly sexist comments that are being made by some in the media about Hillary. I am not talking about conservatives. For example,wo hosts of MSNBC political shows have made blatant comments about Hillary being castrating. Also Jay Leno laughingly showed a Hillary nutcracker doll.
The lack of outrage and protest about these comments is deeply disturbing. Whether or not voters support Hillary Clinton, these kinds of comments should be met with loud protest.

Sent by Dora | 2:25 PM ET | 01-07-2008

For me as a middle aged woman who mostly supports Democratic candidates, my first goal is to support a Democrat who can WIN the 2008 presidential campaign. The Republicans have spent 16 years demonizing Hillary Clinton and I fear that, if she's the nominee, that will simply escalate. We must nominate a person who can take back the White House.

Sent by Gail Pittman | 2:26 PM ET | 01-07-2008

One problem with voting a little later in the process is that the candidate you had decided to support might drop prior to your state's primary. I had decided to support Joe Biden in my state's primary on Feb. 5, but since he's dropped out I'm now undecided once again and feel it is difficult to choose between the existing candidates.

Sent by Roger Kerr | 2:26 PM ET | 01-07-2008

the issues are so similar during this primary (dem), it would take a serious issue variance for issues to play a major part of my decision. mine is made more on personality and who will be better for the general election. thanks...

Sent by Devon from Chicago | 2:27 PM ET | 01-07-2008

Issues, issues, issues! I vote based on whichever candidate best represents the things I believe in - and none of them every match well. We can't afford universal health care, so I'm not keen on the democrats' various plans, but I'm also scared on many republicans' views on reversing Roe v. Wade. I DON'T want another 4 years of a conservative christian in the White House! Whatever happened to separation of church and state?!

Ron Paul's libertarian approach to issues is the closest match for my own concerns, but he's not "electable." I'll likely vote for him, anyway - voting my own conscience rather than for whomever seems to be likely to win.

Sent by Wendy Whipple | 2:28 PM ET | 01-07-2008

Thanks for this topic! Frankly, some of the approaches currently used ... creep me out.

Me, I'm looking at the candidate as a potential "employee". I'm looking back to the candidate's experience, and forward. Beyond the experience and stands, how will this person represent my views and our country in the international forum? Can this person do the job? And do I want her/him to represent me?

Sent by Jenna | 2:30 PM ET | 01-07-2008

I make my decision about who to vote for primarily based on the intelligence of the candidate and how s/he thinks about issues. Personally, I don't want "the guy next door" leading my country as I think we need to have someone who is a creative thinker and has a broad and deep understanding of a large amount of issues. While personality and "likeability" may be important to some, I prefer someone who is intelligent, well-spoken, creative, and understands the responsibility that comes with great power.

Sent by Allison L. Baer | 2:31 PM ET | 01-07-2008

My decision on who to vote for is a two pronged process: First I decide who I absolutely will not vote for. The term "value voter" makes me want to vomit. Anyone who identifies themselves with that particular label will never get my vote. Any support for the NRA, any talk of their "faith" (we are not electing a Pope folks), any mindless repetition of the lies about the Iraq war and anyone who trotts out the Tax Code to try and take the cheap road to getting votes automaticlly gets disqualified.

Phase two: I look at who is left and the one that talks the most about solving problems, seeking solutions and consensus will get my vote. Regardless of party, race, sex.

Sent by George from Oregon | 2:33 PM ET | 01-07-2008

There is nothing irrational about trying to evaluate the person behind the issues. We need a person who will be respected (and liked) around the world. Our influence has been all but destroyed because of a person (George Bush) who is not respected.

Sent by Bill Stinnett | 2:34 PM ET | 01-07-2008

Unfortunately, our candidates are packaged and marketed just like our soap! There isn't a way to know what their positions are, only sound bites.

Sent by Debby in Littleton, Colorado | 2:35 PM ET | 01-07-2008

I think voters need to remember that any plan proposed by the president is going to be pored over and rewritten by congress before it comes to a vote. Hillary Clinton might favor a universal mandate for health care but that means nothing if it can't get through the house and senate. At this point, "issues voters" are taking the primaries much too seriously. All of the democratic candidates favor universal health care, and whether you prefer Edwards' plan to Obama's really doesn't matter, because whatever plan that comes out of the house is going to go through drastic changes.

Sent by Thomas McGrath | 2:37 PM ET | 01-07-2008

Who I vote for in a given election cycle depends on a number of factors (and context), but always involves issue positions, charisma, and ability to communicate/inspire. For instance in the Democratic primary, I could live with either Clinton or O'bama, but I will support O'bama because I am tired of having a Bush or Clinton in the White House. I have been voting since 1988 and have not had a president with one of those family names for the last 20-years. Enough. Also, the problem with solely focussing on issues in the presidential election is that the president doesn't write legislation.

Sent by Chad Giesinger | 2:38 PM ET | 01-07-2008

I've sat on both sides of the desk for job interviews. I feel the resume is what sets up the interview,which is kind of how voters look at the issues, it sets up whether someone gets a serious consideration from voters. But the face-to-face interview tells us things you can't learn from a resume or for that matter a politician's position papers. It's all gut feel a t that point.

I'm an Iowa political activist and saw all the candidates before I dedided.

Sent by Keith | 2:38 PM ET | 01-07-2008

My husband looks at the candidates in a different way--He voted for Al Gore because he was sure he would spend more time "at the office" than George W. Bush would have.

This time, he plans to vote for Clinton rather than Obama-because her daughter is grown up and Obama'skids are still rather little and need a more "hands on Dad" than a President has time to be.

My husband is aware of the issues-but I admire his honesty (and fearlessness- in being willing to tell people why he votes a certain way)

Me, I am hoping for a candidate that doesn't make me hold my nose while casting my ballot.

Sent by Lora Mohr | 2:38 PM ET | 01-07-2008

I'm disgusted when I hear voters talk about us needing charisma. This makes the election a personality contest! This isn't yearbook voting or the Miss America pagent. Charisma is irrelevant--what we need is intellect, mgmt skills and competence, not someone who's lovable. Nor someone who thinks his/her religious views guide their decision making.

My fellow American voters continue to scare me.

Sent by Dave P | 2:39 PM ET | 01-07-2008

Regarding the discussion of whether the country is "ready to elect a black man" or "ready to elect a woman" to the position of President, I'd like to remind everyone that the right to vote, itself, was accorded to black males well before it was afforded to women of any race.

Sent by Dave Schein | 2:39 PM ET | 01-07-2008

What a weird interaction between the host and the guests; in fact, what a weird show. Voters' behavior is being discussed abstractly and they (we) are objectified. Who is this host (and who are these guests, Ms Trendspotter and Mr Brainscan)? For some reason this is presented from the perspective of experts instead of the perspective of real voters.

I don't think the notion of
"trendspotting" is so "cool" in a democracy; it really is not a consumer activity. How 'bout a conversation with a political analyst, psychologist, philosopher or social historian and not a advertising-consumer-marketing analyst? Somehow I find the whole thing (approach) kind of disgusting/demoralizing. If nothing is sacred (and it's all profane) then why not have sports analysts as guests?

I will never vote for the "brand". Never!

When you pander to those interests--that's what you get.

Sent by kamillah | 2:39 PM ET | 01-07-2008

Both focus groups and brain-imaging are well funded but ahistorical research methods. As a scholar of rhetoric, I worry that history seems to elude Ms. Mack and that there are a number of ways we could study our political process that would not only make it better but transfer from "the laboratory" to what rhetorician Kenneth Burke called "the human barnyard" -- real life. But humanities scholarship tends not to be funded ... or is way underfunded. In any case, thanks for a great brand ... er, I mean, show. Lots of charisma!!!

Sent by rx | 2:43 PM ET | 01-07-2008

My concern is that the media, NPR included, is not giving me the information I need to decide. They are so into the horse race -- who's up and who's down -- and alternately into the story of Hillary's fall -- that they don't go into the record of the person who is now the frontrunner, Barack Obama. I'd like to know more about his votes, more about his background, to get some meat into the bones of his vague, idealistic speeches that are repeated ad nauseum.

Sent by Elena | 2:44 PM ET | 01-07-2008

In answer to how do we decide to vote.. it is always important to look closely at the candidate...at the issues they support, what their specific platform is in all areas... how they get their funding, i.e. are they beholden to special interests? As a feminist 55 yr. old woman I am upset by how many women say they would vote for Hillary just BECAUSE she is a woman. To me this is sort of a close minded sexism in reverse. I would love to see a powerful woman candidate but Hillary's stand on many issues is not as progressive as her counterparts. It is ironic that the white Southern male, John Edwards has the most progressive platform. In contrast, Hillary's campaign manager has done PR for tobacco companies and she has taken more money from the Defense Industry than any candidate.

In closing, I feel we will not have the country we wish to have until people take the time to get more informed and look deeper into the truth behind the candidates. Thankfully, Radio and Internet help us to do that instead of the glossy headline driven look we get from television.

Sent by Harriet Huss | 2:48 PM ET | 01-07-2008

I disagree with the idea that "charisma" matters, beyond a basic ability to work with people. What ever happened to the word "integrity"? I believe that many people who say they want to vote "for change" are looking mainly for this very fundamental change: a return to integrity in government. So what's most important to me is that a candidate is authentic, sincere, honest, and principled (and hopefully a majority of their principles match mine). To judge this, I follow the advice of Dr. Richard Wiseman, the psychologist who studied "how to tell if someone is lying": ignore body language. Preferably, close your eyes when listening to a candidate, or listen to them on the radio. This is one reason TV has such inordinate and insidious power over the modern campaign process: it is much easier to lie with body language than with your voice.

Sent by Melissa Mueller | 2:48 PM ET | 01-07-2008

I think the sad reality is that people are , for lack of a better word, lemmings by nature. The unfortunate circumstance in this country is that the "powers that be " continually take advantage of this and consistently flavor our Kool-Aid "media" with whatever information they see as perpetuating their power base.

I consider myself an informed and thinking voter, but I can't begin to tell you why I vote the way I do. I 'll cast my vote in the primary for either vanilla or French vanilla (those will be my only choices)

Sent by Rob | 2:55 PM ET | 01-07-2008

By defining the discussion as "rhetoric vs. charisma" you demean the candidates, the process, and your fellow citizens. People obviously decide based on a complex mix of factors. The candidates offer a complex mix of talents and messages. It's disappointing to hear such binary thinking on NPR. Specifically, the idea that "charisma" is somehow the controlling factor in Obama's success (which the discussion seemed to imply) is just insulting. Yes, Obama has charisma. It is not by any stretch his most important quality. I am especially bothered by the way in which the focus on charisma essentially dismisses the significance of his exceptional intelligence, scholarly knowledge of constitutional law, a demonstrated gift for bringing people together in common cause, and, perhaps most importantly, the fact that he does not attract partisanship (a la Hillary) and offers a persuasive hope for a way forward from the partisan gridlock Americans are simply sick to death of. That's not charisma. It's talent, experience, and the qualities of a gifted leader. It will get my vote.

Sent by Lawrence Eaton | 3:04 PM ET | 01-07-2008

Two ways I decide: Which candidate would best handle the next security crisis and which candidate could best shrink the government to about 1/5 of its current size. Small enought that and otherwise sane person would not spend $100 million dollars to get a job that pays $200,000 a year.

Sent by Dale | 3:56 PM ET | 01-07-2008

I am so glad this 'author' went to jail for his actions- I am heart broken and disgusted that politics IS a business -the truth being revealed in this program is making me ill.....I can't wait til the day all candidates receive a set sum of campaign dollars, and an equal amount of media air time.

Sent by Joan Matey | 3:58 PM ET | 01-07-2008

I am choosing my candidate based on factual POLICY differences and VALUES demonstrated by VOTING RECORD. Not image; not electability; POLICIES and VALUES.

It's easy to talk about the minor differences between candidates when you don't look beyond the three hand-picked 'front runners'.

Yet again, an NPR host (journalist?) fails to point out the inaccuracy of a statement by a guest who says there are "three Democratic candidates" in the race. There are five Democrats still running, but NPR & the MSM continues to ignore Kucinich & Gravel. Step up NPR: cover all the candidates.

My choice is Dennis Kucinich because of his positions of:

Creating a not-for-profit, single payer health care system for all Americans

Ending the Iraq war immediately

Dissolving the Pentagon (half our federal budget) and establishing a cabinet level Department of Peace

Sustainable energy policy excluding dependence on petroleum and nuclear

Withdrawal from and renegotiating all unfair international trade agreements

Protecting free speech and equal rights under the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, including repealing the Patriot Act, ending all torture and extraordinary renditions by US agents or paid contractors

Repealing tax cuts for the wealthy and lowering taxes for the poor and middle class

Defending a woman's constitutional right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.

You might also consider discussing the seven (that's right, SEVEN) Green Party candidates. Or would that be too 'out of the box' for y'all?

Sent by Ross | 4:09 PM ET | 01-07-2008

I would like to see or hear what other Presidential canadates had promissed in the past and see what they actually accomplished in office as to what they promissed. And I would like to see what current canadates had accomplished in their current and past positions.To me its not who they are or who or what they say they stand for but their actual track record of accomplishments.

Sent by Robert Chaffee | 4:27 PM ET | 01-07-2008

What happened to the comments about the topic of the day namely how the manipulators stir the voting wheel..
Is this another tactic to flood the blog with the issues so the topic of manipulation gets burried?

Sent by Joe Voters | 5:04 PM ET | 01-07-2008

Perhaps if we were a better informed public, we would be more likely to make our choices on the candidates stand on the issues. Unfortunately it is incredibly hard to be so informed. The corporate media would much rather politicians spend heavily on buying add time from the corporate media then actually spending money to and air time to inform the public.
I expect better of NPR since most of their money comes from listeners they should be braver in coverage on candidates stands on issues. Perhaps even doing a show on how the current buying of add times and lack of news is degrading our political health.

Sent by Steve Breeze | 5:28 PM ET | 01-07-2008

The Zero sum way that U.S. elections are made make voters often choose to vote against a candidate because the one voted for worries them less. When will our process be remade into a system that reflects a country working together instead of the tyranny of the majority. Even when the candidate I voted for wins I often feel like the winner is shoving things down millions of throats. When I pick the person that gets my vote I will look at the record of each. Universal healthcare, patriot act repeal, leaving Iraq, repairing our failing reputation around the world, and balancing the budget will what i will look at the most.

Sent by Russell Akred | 6:33 PM ET | 01-07-2008

IF the mass media is going to dictate the questions, then my greatest question will not allow me
the chance to decide on which
candidate is best too me. IF all
the predidentail hopefuls isnore the
deepest proven mathematical use of
space and atomic data equations for
mass communications, then I can not
vote for either. IF they believe this matter should still be non-funded, my vote go elsewhere.

Sent by jerry a. Myers | 9:36 PM ET | 01-07-2008

Politics .... yawwwwnnnnnnn

Sent by Rick Evans | 11:06 AM ET | 01-08-2008

Caller Peggy was right about Bush's prior pro-environment stance. He did pledge to reduce CO2 emissions, and then reneged when energy companies (and probably Dick Cheney) applied pressure. Ron Elving implied that she was mistaken about Bush, but he was the one that was wrong. It does make me think that trustworthiness is the most important characteristic for a presidential candidate. What difference does it make what they promise, if they don't keep their word? And Ron owes Peggy an apology.

Sent by Roberta Mann | 8:26 PM ET | 01-08-2008

I agree with the many people who called this show "creepy" or "nauseating". The "experts" sat there telling us what we, the voters, care about, and revealing their ignorance, such as blogger Ms. Mann points out re: Elving's "not remembering" that Bush made pro-environment promises.

Sent by Melissa Mueller | 11:20 PM ET | 01-09-2008