Well, I agree a person's record should be taken into account when we're thinking about making him or her our leader. I also think that Obama and Biden do not have great records, from what I have seen, nor does McCain, and Palin doesn't even really have a record to speak of. Oh, she's been in politics, and you can disagree, but I don't see anything she's done as material for being president, which is really the position I weigh her up against, since McCain could keel over any day. That being said, I'd rather have somebody who, when he or she is uninformed or neutral on a subject to not blindly take sides for the sake of being seen as a strong decision maker. It is better to not make a decision as a senator when you do not think you have been informed to the point of having enough information to process (whether it be Obama, McCain, or anybody else, I actually respect more than most traits the ability to say "I am under informed and will withhold my opinion until I know enough to responsibly take a side").
You wanna know why it's not front page news? Because the system is broken. It is broken, it is wretched and it has been twisted out of shape. That is why we have a party system (especially a two party system), that is why the media is irresponsible and doesn't tell us what we know, that is why somebody can lose an election because of how he looks on TV (starting with Nixon and working on up. In fact, in the Nixon-Kennedy debate, those listening on the radio said Nixon won almost unanimously, but those watching on TV said the opposite), that is why a person who does not receive the popular vote can go on to win an election and reign for eight years, and that is why we are still playing into corporation's hands at our own expenses in every sector, and that is why right now our brilliant leaders have decided the best move is to take $2,000 from every household and hand it to corporations with "no bars held, no questions asked" instead of using that money to, say, provide health care for needing children or homes for those with none.
You can be upset with the system, but generally Republican candidates want to keep the system as static as possible (hence the nature of being "conservative"). Unfortunately, generally Democratic candidates don't do much to change the system. Which brings us back to the system is broken.
Also, very few people want equality, I bet you yourself are included in this (at least at some level, and I, too, am sure that I am guilty). People want to be equal OR GREATER THAN. They want their issues at the forefront and they want their side to win, and equality isn't enough but it is a start. Is it terrible? Yes. Does every major (and probably every minor) social movement do it in at least factions? Yes.
A great example of records being distorted which is pretty disgusting is an ad that is currently going around here that essentially says McCain will support a tax break for companies shipping jobs overseas. Except the tax break is designed to encourage companies to bring the jobs back overseas, and Obama supports the same legislature. Ridiculous that people can get away with that, especially since I know this add is rioting hundreds of thousands of Democrats into fevered, drooling dreams of Obama for president across the Midwest (maybe the nation, I don't know far the ad is being run).
Also, to be fair, FOX is REALLY, REALLY conservative (going so far as to put polls up about "who would be more likely to cheat at cards, Bill Clinton" or some other democrat), and it is owned by the third largest media outlet in the world with cable news programs (only outdone by the ever powerful AOL Time/Warner with CNN and Viacom with CBS and the faux news shows on Comedy Central). But the "mother corporation," News Outlet, owns the more News-Oriented media than any other company in the world--if I'm not mistaken, which if I am recalling correctly, I am not. These are figures I learned in early 2008, but I'm pretty sure they hold up now.