Watching the Democratic Debate last night and comparing it to the Republican Debate some weeks ago has brought a couple of things to light that I had not noticed before. If you consider the different audiences that the two debates attract, it is not surprising to think/say that the Democratic Debate attracted a more moderate crowd. Maybe it's a product of the nature of the candidates themselves, but the Republican Debate seemed less controlled. What I mean by that, is that the Democratic Debate felt more issue based, and they were less concerned about whatever personal attacks were made. A part of this comes from what we as a society view as "the truth" and how we perceive ourselves to come to it. Every single politician claims to have seen, or to know exactly what to do to fix whatever issues are at hand. Each one has different "truths" that they hold themselves to, and their respective constituencies all have their reasons for voting for a candidate also. How can we expect the media to be objective when the politicians that they are watching/reporting on are FAR from objective?  What people seem to forget is that all of the different statements that politicians make before being voted into office changes when they are actually voted into office. People say the President didn't do this, or is incapable of doing that, and claim to know why that is the case. However, we must remember that the office of the President is a fluid position, and that there are things that the public will never know, that will probably greatly influence the ability for future Presidents to take action like they say they will. In conclusion, we all think we know what's best, but we have no idea.