This charming pic-toon of moderation comes from one of my talented long time friends, Ron Overmyer, who has allowed me to share it with our readers. He does a weekly email blast and this is one of his tamer commentaries, one that might give us pause to consider what it means to be objective.

I thought I would take a moment to shout out to any moderates in the audience and say that I too have worried that some of my colleagues may have sacrificed their reputations for objectivity by writing some posts that could be viewed as borderline paid political announcements. Some readers have quipped that this should be included in the disclosure. However, on the occasion that this is true, it is usually so blatant that I would characterize such disclosure as redundant.

Several of my posts contain political commentary but I think our posts should be about investing, not swaying voter opinion. I especially avoid one-sided rationalizations that appear to have a specific agenda -- although I readily admit that on occasion the dividing line may be very fine indeed.

I still have not made up my mind about the upcoming election because I find some merit in the positions of each candidate. But to me the real question on our site remains: where do you put your money in the case of either candidate's success?

Sources close to CNN broadcast journalist/commentator Lou Dobbs said he is seriously considering a run for the U.S. presidency in 2008, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Dobbs, who formerly hosted CNN's MoneyLine business news show and currently hosts CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight has seen both his ratings and his name recognition rise after his work's focus turned away from news reporting and anchoring and toward political and economic commentary.

Dobbs, an independent, displays an ideology and a political world view that many have characterized as a modified hybrid of Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan -- i.e. populism combined with strong views against free trade (or current trade frameworks) and against illegal immigration.

Dobbs is a frequent critic of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which he argues don't represent the interests of the typical person or the middle class. His show's website describes him as "an independent populist and the leading media advocate for working men and women, their families, our middle class and the American way of life."

Political Analysis: Unless there's a tidal wave of discontent in the American electorate not tallied by pollsters, Dobbs, as a third-party candidate or as an Independent, has virtually no chance of being elected president of the United States. Although his name recognition is rising and he has a positive public image, it's highly unlikely Dobbs could assemble the campaign staff and money required to compete effectively against Democratic and Republican parties' nominees.

However, this is not to say that Dobbs could not broaden the discourse, i.e. "force the discussion of less-publicized issues" during a debate. Dobbs could accomplish this, but it must be emphasized that making points in a debate is a much easier task than receiving enough votes to win the electoral college vote for U.S. president.

Rolling Stone magazine recently published a fortieth anniversary issue celebrating the magazine's tenure in the popular culture business. After reading the issue and wading through the multitude of advertisements, I started thinking about Rolling Stone as the precursor to so many of the music magazines in existence today and how these kinds of media serve the record industry in an increasingly digital world. Forty years ago, Rolling Stone may have been an inventive method to sell music, with interviews and features about artists, but as it is now the magazine and its followers are hardly what they claim to be: music magazines.

The very notion of a "music magazine" is quickly becoming outdated, as is found simply by perusing through the articles and features through most of the print I purchase regularly. Compare it to other, older magazines, like the British NME and you will find that the Rolling Stone falls down in coverage simply because there is an overabundance of non-music advertisements. Even other contemporary magazines, like Blender, manage to advertise the actual music, while both sell the digital devices that are quickly becoming the mediums of music transferal.

If championing the music is the goal, which presumably it is, Rolling Stone has never seemed far from what we call "mainstream," so it hardly has the capacity to introduce new bands and compete with the growth of online services like Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG)'s YouTube or News Corporation (NYSE: NWS)'s MySpace. Even other magazines quickly champion lesser known bands into mass-popularity. Consider NME, the magazine was a massive supporter of the Arctic Monkeys and they quickly became more popular than they had been, even with the online support. With the weekly issue NME prints, the publisher keeps a more up-to-date and consistent online news service, signaling that the move online is not contained to artists.