Thanks for telling me.

They were just talking about people's hopes & motivations for the election, and then mentioned the problems that are still up ahead. It was standard fare. Charges of slant and bias rarely come from unbiased sources.

were supposed to have and how that doesn't bode well for Democrats, particularly in Colorado, but then they threw in some crap about Independents. It was not "unbiased." They used much more optimistic words when discussing Republicans. I'm not going to argue with you. I heard what I heard.

It seemed like straight forward reporting to me, albeit with their distinctive "human events" coloring.

I am staying off TV but occasionally channel surf for a few minutes and most of what I have seen yesterday and today in light of consensus that Obama will probably win is gloom and doom of the fiscal cliff, more gridlock etc.

But I think those of us voting for Obama are looking at the positives- health care security for millions more, steady leadership in crises and foreign policy, more protection of rights for women and minorities, budget policies more favorable for jobs and infrastructure vs more tax cuts for wealthy and continuing important regulation protecting Americans.

Every day, it is a steady stream of "couldn't be tighter", "neck and neck" etc. Only glancing comments to the swing states where it is actually decided, and even then they always describe that as a small advantage for Obama but anything can happen.

I don't expect them to promote Obama 24x7, but I do expect them to state the facts correctly. I've switched my radio over to sports talk. But I guess that wasn't much better. Before the World Series, all I heard about was just exactly how badly Detroit was going to dominate San Francisco. But at least in that case, it is presented as partisan opinion.