CNN iReport

The media is overstating the value of VP selection in terms of the impact it will have on who wins the election. The only true value it brings is it gives us insight into the decision making of Obama and McCain. McCain has been applauded by Fox News and CNN for being a "maverick" and taking a big "gamble" with his selection of Palin. I am personally a 32 year old working husband and father of a 1 year old son. I do not relish the idea of having a 72 year old President who takes wild and surprising risks and gambles with the very future of this country, especially after 8 turbulent years of the Bush Administration. I fail to see how gambling with our future and our country is a positive trait. Is his decision to select Palin indicative of other appointments he would make as president? Shouldnt VP selection be someone who can step in as POTUS and help the president govern? Why wont the media be honest and acknowledge that this selection was an inartful attempt to pander to women voters who are presently strongly in favor of Obama.

Now lets look at Obamas selection of Biden. Even though he had less time than McCain to vet a runningmate I think most would agree that Biden is well qualified to step in should something happen to Obama. He is also someone I think Obama can trust and will help him govern. It would have been considered politically expedient if he picked Hillary and it would have looked like a weak pander to women if he picked Kathleen Sebelius. Honesty in the media is so painfully missing since the passing of Tim Russert. Right now I can tell you CNN and FOx are pro McCain, MSNBC is pro Obama and no one is objective. There was a glimmer of honesty tonight with Toobin's commentary where he fact checked Palin by explaining that Obamas tax plan gives tax cuts to 88% of the people. The role of journalism as Tim Russert put it is to seek the truth not push your political views on others. I can tell Rolin Martin is for Obama and John King and Wolf Blitzer is for McCain. I wouldnt be able to tell who you were for if you were objective.