Politicians Stances on Important Issues

To begin researching the presidential candidate's stances on hot topics I started by Googling a few key words, which yielded good results. The research has only just begun, but I've found a few sites that are doing basically the same thing we are - monitoring the candidates actions and their positions on specific issues.
One site (http://www.2decide.com/table.htm) had an interactive table that neatly lists all the presidential candidates and their positions on many important debate topics. Be sure to have a look at that, for people who might know who's running but don't know where the candidates stand - this is great.
The second site (http://mediamatters.org/) acts like an online watchdog. It not only covers what the candidates are doing and saying in the 'Candidate 2008' section, it also has good information on other topics themselves. Go here and find the 'Issues/Topics' button at the top and a list will pop up where you can decide on an issue (i.e. Media), a sub-issue (Propaganda/Noise Machine), then a specific topic (Hillary Clinton, etc.).
I don't know how to add in picture links, or else I'd put a visual of the table mentioned above - if anyone could give me any pointers on blogging, it'd be appreciated. I'm new to this whole media revolution game.

Debates? Honest or memorized?

Lincoln-Douglas debates were viewed as the ideal democratic debate between two opposing parties in a nonpartisan environment where each debater could express their own opinion without being interrupted. However, when reviewing political debates in the modern day it is easy to see how not only the subjects of debate but the debate itself has changed.

Debate no longer has it's beautiful shine and unyielding luster of truth. But instead is a collection of 30 second memorized answers that any given candidate can spit out when they are asked basic questions. This does not hold true to the idea of debate or the foundation of democracy that our fair country rests on. Democracy can survive only if the candidates can give the public honest and maybe even blunt answers to the hardest questions. Modern day debates seem to be lacking the honestly once bestowed upon them because behind our candidates rushed answers sits a campaign manager and a sheet of paper reminding them how to relate to the public.

If a candidate can't honestly relate to the public and can't accurately describe their opinions to even the most dreaded questions how can we expect them to rule our country without corruption and hold up the ever shifting ideals of democracy?