Much Better

The reviews are in and most fact-checking sites I'm seeing are giving Obama's speech pretty good reviews.

Obama

I've linked to only one because it seemed representative of the ones I looked at. So, at least, Obama did a pretty good job of telling truths, especially when you compare them to the outright untruths his opponents used. This right here will sway me, as an independent, non-party affiliated voter toward Obama at this state of the campaign, because I feel strongly that campaigners should not be allowed to lie in speeches. So far, that is all I've received from the Republican side.

This is NOT to say I'm thrilled with my choices. I would vote for a strong third-party candidate today if one came up with an actual PLAN for how to do all of the (very similar) things that both Romney and Obama are claiming they will do to turn America around. Neither of these two candidates have actually stated a plan nor the steps they will take to actual enact those plans. Instead, they have simply stated (fairly ephemeral) goals for what they hope to accomplish. A blogger I read often has summarized it nicely, using her past employment as an example.

I am also swayed toward Obama by my health issues, which are covered and cannot be taken away from me by Obama's health care mandates (some of the most important aspects for me come into play in 2013 and 2014). Voting for Romney would (most likely) repeal "Obamacare" and he would create... what exactly? I've been to Mitt's website and listened to his speeches and he has not mentioned what he would replace it with. Which is par for the course, as Obama repeatedly asked for Republican input in creating Obamacare and they refused but never offered an alternative plan or put their ideas out for the American people to review. It may not be great, and there are tweaks and changes that need to be made, but I'll take the bird in the hand over the (so far) non-existent birds in the bush on this one, as it directly affects me.

Lastly, I can't help but think if we had kept the Constitution's original way of electing a President and Vice-President we wouldn't be in this bi-partisan mess we are today. As I have commented before in detail, originally everyone ran for one office: President. The person with the most votes was elected and the person with the second-most votes became vice-president. I believe this was an inherent check and balance as it forced people with differing opinions to work together for the good of the country. It also allowed there to be more parties and diversity in Congress. Looking at it today, there would almost have to be less partisanship if the President and Vice-President were of different parties but working toward the same agendas. And it would also allow the two to go to Congress with a more united front on what needed to be done and why. Congress (and America in general) would likely have more parties and campaigners would have to convince individuals of their plans and goals rather than swaying enough of the other party to vote them into office.

I am, so far, both less than thrilled and less hopeful about this election. At least one party decided not to lie, so I'm not totally without hope at this early stage. Now, let the mud start slinging.