I am buried, however, by information, opinions and influences while I try to sort out the real facts from the bullshit; it has left me clinging fervently to my core beliefs.

As a woman, reproductive rights have been a deeply influential topic in my decision on who to elect as President of the United States this year. Above all, I feel the need to protect my body and the decisions surrounding it.

Pro-choice advocates line the walkway outside Hellems on Oct. 5, 2011. The protests were in response to graphic Freedom for All abortion displays on campus. (CU Independent/Robert R. Denton)

Imagine for a second that you are facing the hardest decision you will ever have to make. Any choice you pick will forever change your life and the doubt of making the wrong choice will haunt you every single day. You hate yourself for how easily avoidable the circumstances are. It is too late for prevention and asking “what if” is a form of psychological torture. You are terrified, you’re confused, and you have never felt so alone.

Like many women my age, I have considered this scenario and what I would do if I were in a situation that forced me to reconcile a stupid mistake by either aborting a developing fetus or sacrificing my entire life to raise a child.

Even as a theoretical situation, it’s difficult to consider.

Now imagine that you finally decide on what you believe to be the lesser of these two evils. You go to an abortion clinic, fill out the paperwork, and follow through with your decision. While this decision has permanently changed your life, you briefly appreciate the fact that you have access to a safe, clean, and legal way to handle this devastating problem.

Abortion is a last resort. Generally, a woman will not choose to get an abortion unless she is absolutely certain that she could not successfully raise a child.

If a woman decides to get an abortion, she will find a way to get an abortion. Roe v. Wade has made the consequences of this decision safer, but that does not mean that women were not aborting fetuses in states that did not legally offer a safe option before 1973.

Roe v. Wade provided access to a doctor, rather than a coat hanger, to solve their problem. In such a profoundly personal decision as getting an abortion, legal opposition will do little to stop the unsafe implementation of such an archaic, gruesome birth control methods if abortions were illegal in the U.S.

As President Obama explained in the second presidential debate on Oct. 16, this medical debate has a huge economic facet. The demand put on women to take full responsibility for contraception and the consequences of its misuse is more than just an emotional burden — it’s a financial one as well.

“This is not just a health issue, it’s an economic issue for women. It makes a difference,” Obama said in the debate. “I’ve got two daughters and I want to make sure that they have the same opportunities that anybody’s sons have.”

If the financial responsibility of an abortion falls solely onto the woman (and, in many cases, it does), women do resort to alternative methods to solve their problems. This is dangerous and must not continue. Women are not second class citizens, and this paradox of responsibility needs to end.

Mitt Romney plans to overturn Roe v. Wade. The next presidential term will ring in one to three new Supreme Court justices, and Romney has made it well known that he intends to appoint justices who will challenge and upset this pivotal case. Overturning it would give the power to state legislatures, which would significantly impact women who were unlucky enough to live in a state that did not support legal abortions.

I do not support the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Does this mean that I don’t understand the gravity of abortion? No. Does this mean that I would get an abortion if faced with this decision? Not necessarily. But comparing my circumstances with others is like comparing apples and oranges, and it is thoroughly insensitive for me to project how I would make this decision onto other women facing this same choice.

A desperate woman will make desperate efforts to fix her problems. My only wish is that she has a safe way to achieve her goal, rather than risk her life to conduct her own abortion.

In this upcoming election, it is crucial for voters to solidify their goals for our country and select a candidate that will move to achieve such objectives. Reproductive rights for women are something that cannot be sacrificed. Whether or not you, personally, would choose to go through with an abortion is irrelevant to the decision at hand. Being pro-choice means giving all women thechoice of whether they feel this procedure is necessary, and neither you nor I have the authority to make that decision for them.

Contact Staff Writer Anna LoSecco at Anna.losecco@colorado.edu.

The event will air on all major network television channels and cable news channels CNN, MSNBC and Fox News at 7 p.m. MST. It will follow the same format as the first presidential debate, with 15-minute segments per six topics.

The moderator is Bob Schieffer of CBS News, the current host of Face the Nation. Scheiffer will be asking Obama and Romney questions about foreign policy, steering away from the topics of the last two presidential debates and the vice presidential debate, which focused on domestic policy, particularly the economy.

(CU Independent Illustration/Josh Shettler)

Monday is also when early voting begins. An Oct. 16 national Gallup poll shows the two candidates to be in a dead heat, tied at 47 percent amongst registered voters; Obama barely has the edge over Romney in Colorado.

Contact CU Independent Breaking News Editor Annie Melton at Anne.melton@colorado.edu.

It is safe to say that there was a clear “winner” of the second presidential debate — President Obama. Although Romney did have his strong moments, the president ultimately had the better performance.

President Obama delivers a campaign speech to an estimated crowd of 13,000 Sept. 2 on Norlin Quad. (CU Independent File/James Bradbury)

As predicted, Obama brought his game to this debate, taking his level of aggression a step further than he did in Denver. He kept Romney on the defense the entire night, which was the opposite of the first debate.

On the other hand, Romney seemed to effectively continue with his campaign strategy of posing the question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

The governor also used the fact that the system he created in Massachusetts is working well and that he “knows what a working economy looks like.”

He then went on to describe that if he were elected President, he would shape America’s economy and government after that of his policy successes in Massachusetts.

But that was the extent of his notable portions of the debate.

Obama utilized his advantage as the incumbent particularly well Tuesday night. He was able to highlight the certain things he has done within the past four years that he promised at the beginning of his term he would accomplish. His argument about national security stood out in particular when he proved that he did in fact do what he said he would.

“I said I’d end the war in in Iraq, and I did,” Obama said in the debate. “I said that we’d go after al-Qaeda and Bin Laden, we have. I said we’d transition out of Afghanistan, and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security, that’s what I’m doing.”

He continued to strengthen his performance by pushing that he needs another term in order to keep us on the right track and continue with the policies that he has already implemented—as it is extremely difficult to fix an economy as messed up as ours within a short amount of time.

Additionally, President Obama did a phenomenal job of keeping the upper hand throughout the debate. For one, when Romney brought up his five-point plan to back up many of his points last night, Obama immediately knocked him down, calling his plan a “one-point plan” that would essentially bring us back to the state the economy was in four years ago.

At the end, one of the audience members, Barry Green, gave both candidates a chance to voice what is most misunderstood about them. Romney brought up that he does indeed “care about 100 percent of the American people.” Obama took this as a chance to exemplify that Romney had said his comment about the 47 percent behind closed doors and directed voters to look closer at what he was talking about and what he really believes in.

Romney tried and failed to shake Obama multiple times.

“It took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror,” Romney said.

Immediately, Candy Crowley, the moderator, argued back that, “he did in fact… call it an act of terror… but it did take two weeks or so for the whole idea to come out.” This demonstration hurt Romney’s credibility and made Obama’s performance appear even stronger.

“This was the iciest town meeting debate of all six,” Michael Beschloss said on PBS following the debate. “I used to think that 2000 between George W. Bush and Al Gore was an uncomfortable evening. Compared to this one, that was Valentine’s Day.”

Obama and Romney were certainly comfortable being aggressive with one another, and Obama was definitely not characterized as passive this time around.

President Obama clearly proved himself to be the winner in the second presidential debate by out-performing Gov. Romney.

With the election so close, and Obama possibly proving himself a better candidate in his performance against Romney last night, it will be interesting to see who actually wins in November.

Contact Staff Writer Haley James at Haley.james@colorado.edu.

The Nov. 6 election is just 19 days away and, with only one presidential debate left, the candidates’ positions on some of the hottest and most misunderstood topics were elaborated on Tuesday evening.

82 uncommitted voters from the New York area were given the chance to ask the candidates questions at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., which produced answers on the topics that were not furnished in the first debate: women-specific issues, the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya and tax deductions. Read on for the candidates’ quarreling responses to some of the biggest questions their campaigns face at this juncture in the election season.

Contraception and Abortion

Obama had the opportunity to end a discussion about women’s equal pay and opportunity (which both candidates support) on a note of health care, an unplanned but strategic move that disallowed his opponent to directly respond.

“In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who is insured. Because this is not just a health issue, it’s an economic issue for women. It makes a difference,” Obama said.

“When Governor Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care, they rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings,” Obama said. “That’s a pocketbook issue for women and families all across the country.”

As part of his extensive plan to cut government spending, Romney would indeed eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood and other Title X family planning programs.

“These are not just women’s issues,” Obama said. “These are family issues. These are economic issues.”

In a brief reply to Obama, Romney said at the beginning of his next response that the president misconstrued his stance.

“I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not,” Romney said. “And I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care of not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.”

Romney has previously stated that he would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in America.

“He believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade — a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges,” Romney’s website reads.

Since two of the U.S. Supreme Court’s nine justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, are predicted to retire in the near future, the upcoming presidential election could mean drastic changes to the nation’s highest court.

Currently, five, conservative-leaning justices and four liberal-leaning justices sit on the court. The replacement of Ginsburg and Breyer, members appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993 and 1994 respectively, could throw an overwhelming majority into the conservative field if replaced with right-wing justices. Romney would, therefore, have the ability to overturn Roe v. Wade by choosing justices that would align with his conservative values.

Tax Deductions

Gov. Romney explained the tax deductions and closed loopholes that he says will balance out the tax cuts he plans to give Americans if elected.

Since Romney would lower tax rates by as much as 20 percent for every income bracket, resulting in less money paid to the federal government, he would also limit the deductions that Americans receive back.

“In terms of bringing down deductions, one way of doing that would be, say, everybody gets — I’ll pick a number — $25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use,” Romney said. “Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit, and so forth, you can use those as part of filling that bucket, if you will, of deductions.”

Popular deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations may be lost, depending on the individual’s “bucket.”

“But your rate comes down and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason, and that is every middle-income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends or capital gains,” Romney said. “No tax on your savings. That makes life a lot easier.”

He said that a limit on deductions would be especially apparent to top income earners.

“I’m going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits particularly for people at the high end because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they’re paying now.

Obama responded by saying that the math does not work out to the economy’s advantage.

“You’re going to lose some deductions and you can’t buy the sales pitch,” he said to the audience. “Nobody who’s looked at it that’s serious, actually believes it adds up.”

Although a number of different studies do dispute the legitimacy of Romney’s tax plan, the idea an allowance to individuals for annual tax benefits is a step toward an understanding of how the candidate perceives his proposed system would actualize.

Libya

Kerry Ladka asked Obama to explain who within the State Department denied extra security for the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya prior to the Sept. 11 attack on the embassy that resulted in the deaths of the ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three U.S. staffers.

The president of the United States has the power to appoint ambassadors under Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, a point that led Obama’s heartfelt response on his duty to protect those he appoints.

“I know these folks and I know their families, so nobody is more concerned about their safety and security than I am,” Obama said. “So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team and I gave them three instructions.”

Those instructions were to bolster security at every U.S. embassy around the globe, investigate the incident, and bring the offenders to justice, he said.

On Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton offered herself as a scapegoat for the outcomes in Libya.

“I take responsibility; I am the one in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts,” Clinton said to a CNN journalist in Lima, Peru on Monday at her first overseas trip since the attack.

“We weren’t told they wanted more security,” Vice President Joe Biden said of the consulate’s request before the attack at the vice presidential debate on Thursday, preceding the secretary of state’s message. But the executive has caught flack for not taking responsibility since the attack and Clinton’s statement, which he addressed at the debate Tuesday.

“I am ultimately responsible for what’s taking place there because these are my folks, and I’m the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home,” Obama said.

“Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I’m the president and I’m always responsible, and that’s why nobody’s more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do.”

Gov. Romney agreed that Obama should take responsibility, like many outspoken Republicans in Congress have done both before and after Clinton’s remarks.

“I think the president just said correctly that the buck does stop at his desk and he takes responsibility for the failure in providing those security resources; and those terrible things may well happen from time to time.”

Romney claimed that the president disregarded the attack by continuing fundraising and campaign trips to Nevada and Colorado the next day.

Romney also, and more notably, said that Obama did not call the event an “act of terror” the day following the event, contrary to the moderator and the president’s claims.

“It took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror,” Romney said, to which the president retorted, “Get the transcript.”

Crawley backed up Obama.

“He did call it an act of terror,” she said of the president’s Sept. 12 statement. “It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out, you are right about that.”

The president had indeed called the situation correctly the day after the event.

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” Obama said at the Rose Garden in Las Vegas, Nevada on Sept. 12.

Despite the squabble, Obama offered truthful commentary on the recent proceedings of his administration, the record that his opponent continues to call him out on.

Contact CU Independent Opinion Editor Alison Noon at Alison.noon@colorado.edu.

Contact CU Independent Opinion Editor Alison Noon at Alison.noon@colorado.edu and Breaking News Editor Anne Melton at Annie.melton@colorado.edu.

(CU Independent Illustration/Josh Shettler)

Contrary to popular belief, debates do matter, and if no other journalists are willing to make a connection between Romney’s work on stage on Oct. 3 to his skyrocketing poll numbers on Oct. 4, let it be me.

67 million people tuned in to watch Obama and Romney hash it out on Oct. 3.

That is two or three times the number of people who tuned in to watch the party conventions, depending on the day – even when the nominees gave their speeches.

Conventions draw viewers who support their ticket and political party – they do not attract or sway the all-important undecided voters that tune in to the presidential debates. And yet, a number of prominent media outlets have said this election that debates, like conventions, do not sway votes. Historically, this may be true, but following the first debate of 2012, we have witnessed an upswing for one party indicative of the opposite. This may be because of the huge number of Americans – Republicans, Democrats and undecided voters alike – that are tuning in.

If debate viewers resemble the American electorate, we can estimate that 5 percent of debate-watchers, 3.35 million for the Denver debate, were or still are undecided. Even after dispersing those votes across swing states, that number is huge.

Even if the candidates’ performances at debates do not sway undecided voters on Election Day, still 21 days away, the base supporters that the events excite may make a difference in the weeks leading up to it.

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, in addition to attracting undecideds, the debate mobilized supporters of the night’s clear winner – Mitt Romney. Before Oct. 3, Obama led in the number of “very enthusiastic” supporters 59-52 over Romney. After the debate, however, Romney leads 62-60.

Romney and Obama are going into Tuesday’s debate with a more even score than the first, in terms of both ground game and poll numbers. If anything, this should mean that Tuesday’s debate matters even more than the last.

This is an exciting time to pay attention to the political sphere. Ninety-minute presidential debates may be boring at points, but the parts that do resonate with viewers stick. If Tuesday’s debate is as polarizing as the last, viewers might still remember those vote-grabbing bits on election day.

The town-hall-style debate will take place at 7 p.m. Mountain Time at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y., and I suggest everyone tune in to C-SPAN to watch without commentator interruption.

Contact CU Independent Opinion Editor Alison Noon at Alison.noon@colorado.edu.

The CU Independent’s Chelsea Shettler takes on the political season with her view on politics.

Check back next week for another cartoon.

[Show as slideshow]

Contact CU Independent Graphic Artist Chelsea Shettler at Chelsea.shettler@colorado.edu.

The Marijuana Symposium, an event hosted by CUSG, was held Oct. 10 at 7 p.m. in the UMC Glenn Miller Ballroom to talk about the health effects of marijuana and the possible outcomes if Amendment 64 is passed.

According to the Colorado Secretary of State’s website, Amendment 64 permits “a person twenty-one years of age or older to consume or possess limited amounts of marijuana.” The amendment also provides that an excise tax would be issued on wholesale sales of marijuana and the first $40 million of annual revenue from this tax would be allocated towards public schools.

Dr. Don Misch, of Wardenburg Health Center, provides nonpartisan information prior to Wednesday night’s Marijuana Symposium in the Glenn Miller Ballroom. (CU Independent/Andrew Tawil)

Speakers on the symposium panel who made an argument against the proposition included Ben Cort and Don Quick. They contend that there is a correlation between drugs, crime, and dropout rates and that legalizing marijuana will only exacerbate these negative statistics.

Quick said that passing the amendment would not get rid of the illegal dealings of marijuana.

“Where there’s money to be made, you’re gonna have a black market, you’re not gonna get rid of it,” Quick said.

Cort said that legalization could make it easier for immature teenagers to gain access to the drug and that even after 90 years of prohibition, marijuana is more popular than ever in modern youth culture.

“The fear that I have as a father is that if you take this and allow everybody over 21 access, then we have just created a completely captive black market for everybody under 21,” said Cort.

Meanwhile Christian Sederberg and Art Way of the symposium panel argued in favor of passing Amendment 64.

“It’s not a pro-marijuana initiative, it’s an anti-prohibition initiative,” said Way.

While both sides agreed that passing the amendment would not get rid of black markets, Way and Sederberg argued that it would diminish the violence that stems from underground markets. They said that they are also in favor of the taxes and regulations that can be placed on marijuana if it is legalized.

David Fackler, a 19-year-old sophomore business major, said that the Marijuana Symposium discussion did not sway his support of Amendment 64.

“I’m definitely for [legalization],” Fackler said. “I think the only two valid arguments the opposing side had were that you shouldn’t drive when you’re high and that [smoking marijuana] damages kids’ psychological development. So I’m still in support of [legalization], but I think there should be money from the taxation sent to fix those problems.”

Martin Miramontes, a 20-year-old sophomore political science major, said that other issues that directly impact CU should be debated.

“Students have other things to worry about on campus rather than a state-wide legislation dictating the legalization of marijuana,” Miramontes said. “We have other issues that directly impact students.”

Don Misch, vice chancellor of health and wellness and the director of Wardenburg, provided insight on the health effects of marijuana. While the common thought is that marijuana is a relatively harmless drug, Misch explained that it has the potential to impair brain development.

“The concern is that heavy marijuana use in puberty and mid-adolescence can affect brain structure and function,” Misch said.

Misch said that marijuana can hinder memory and learning. He explained that THC is stored in body fat long after you stop smoking, so the memory impairment can last after one stops feeling the effects.

“So the notion that you can smoke all you want up until Friday, stop over the weekend, and be ready for the test on Monday is just not true,” Misch said.

For heavy marijuana users, quitting can be just as difficult as quitting cigarettes, Misch said. Marijuana gives users psychological withdrawal, which can be worse than physical symptoms.

“When most people think of withdrawal they think of heroin withdrawal, those horrible symptoms,” Misch said.

Misch ended his presentation with a warning about the use of illicit drugs.

“Medicine is not good or bad, it is both,” Misch said. “Drugs can do great things, pharmaceuticals can do great things when used in the right person, in the right dose, at the right time with the right pills. But virtually every medicine I can prescribe can also kill people and have adverse effects, and marijuana is the same.”

A follow-up debate to the Marijuana Symposium will be held Oct. 24 at the Wolf Law Building.

Contact CU Independent Staff Writer Samantha Valenteen at Samantha.valenteen@colorado.edu.  

The most recent incident of a musician vs. politician feud was between Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan and Rage Against the Machine (RATM) guitarist Tom Morello. According to Huffington Post, Ryan had previously stated that RATM is his favorite band. Upon hearing this, Morello, in an op-ed on Rolling Stone’s website, said Ryan was “the embodiment of the machine our band rages against.”

(CU Independent Illustration/Josh Shettler)

Morello’s distaste did not stop there. He went on to say that Ryan has plenty of “rage,” but “a rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor [and] a rage against the environment.”

This trend of criticizing a Republican leader is not new. In 2004, during a concert in London, female country group The Dixie Chicks chastised then-President George Bush and fellow Texan, saying, “We’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

Although some may say it was a mild comment, The Dixie Chicks faced much backlash after. Radio stations refused to play their music, the group’s songs disappeared from the charts and lead singer Natalie Maines received death threats. After the incident, the band went on hiatus for three years.

Students seem to have views that support the sales drop The Dixie Chicks experienced after their political remarks.

“I wouldn’t want to be preached at about something I don’t support, so I would stop listening,” said Colten Meisner, a sophomore integrated psychology major.

Since the entertainment industry is known for being leftist, it is no surprise most of musicians’ criticisms is centered against the Republican Party. To counteract this however, country musician Hank Williams Jr. has said some harsh words towards President Obama.

“We’ve got a Muslim president who hates farming, hates the military, hates the U.S. and we hate him!” said Williams at a concert in Iowa. As a result of his inaccurate comment, ESPN stopped playing his song as the opening for “Monday Night Football,” after a 20 year-plus run.

Rock musician Ted Nugent has said some similar remarks about Obama, saying that the president “represents everything bad about humanity,” and “if Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year.” Nugent was investigated by the Secret Service as a result of these comments.

Sometimes a good thing can come out of musician’s political statements, occasionally leading to jumps in their careers. One day after Kelly Clarkson declared her support for Ron Paul, sales of her album “Stronger” went up 442 percent, going from No. 38 to No. 7 on Amazon’s sale list.

Left-leaning or right-leaning, it is not always so easy to tell what kind of statement a musician is attempting to make. In her spot on friend Lil Wayne’s “Dedication 4” mixtape, hip-hop artist Nicki Minaj appeared to endorse Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney with her lyrics stating, “I’m a Republican voting for Mitt Romney/ You lazy b—hes is f—ing up the economy.”

Later, however, Minaj tweeted at Obama, claiming she was being sarcastic, “Ha! Thank you for understanding my creative humor & sarcasm Mr. President, the smart ones always do… *sends love & support*.”

Associate Professor Mike McDevitt from the CU Journalism Department commented on this current trend.

“It used to be that people, based on their religious identity, socioeconomic status and other sociodemographic identifiers, would know which party to vote for,” McDevitt said. “I think what’s happening as political parties lose their influence and have [been] replaced in a lot of ways with media, people are identifying with actors and musicians as people they see sharing their political values.”

When James Brody, Associate Professor in the CU College of Music, was asked to describe the current relationship between music and politics, he answered “strained.” He referenced a “Saturday Night Live” skit in which John McCain releases a vocal album, saying “if Streisand can make political pronouncements, then I can sing.”

“Celebrities of all sorts obviously have more visibility than us ordinary folk, so their opinions can be heard more clearly but don’t necessarily have any more inherent value,” Brody said.

While some musicians try to use their public persona for political action, in most cases these acts cause more harm than good. Their actions can lead to dropped endorsements, low album sales and sometimes even death threats.

Contact CU Independent Staff Writer Kelly Katz at Kelly.katz@colorado.edu.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has gained momentum in Colorado and national polls after his performance at the first presidential debate last Wednesday at University of Denver, making the vice presidential candidates’ debate performances particularly important to the narrowing race.

(CU Independent Graphic Illustration/Josh Shettler)

The 90-minute debate will cover both foreign and domestic issues.

Thursday night’s moderator, Martha Raddatz, has served as White House correspondent for ABC News during the last term of President George W. Bush’s administration and, since 2008, has been ABC News’ Senior Foreign Affairs correspondent. She has traveled across the globe reporting on foreign affairs.

Raddatz will balance time with nine 10-minute segments for discussion of the questions, according to the Commission on Presidential Debates. The debate will be available on C-SPAN, ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN and MSNBC.

Contact CU Independent Opinion Editor Alison Noon at alison.noon@colorado.edu