We're not too proud to beg, so we're begging locals to start taking the 2008 elections seriously now, due to the sheer volume and magnitude of things at stake.

Just for kicks, read the following sentences and see if they sound familiar.

"I know more about Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments on America than I do about Barack Obama's positions on North Korea, Iran or Venezuela."

"I just heard about Pastor John Hagee, and I've seen John McCain on The Daily Show, but I've got no clue what McCain's going to do about our $9 trillion deficit or Social Security."

Our guess - most news-source readers or viewers, not to mention too many writers and editors, couldn't deny either statement. And that's damned scary.

For today's voters who weren't old enough in the year 2000, political discourse included straight-faced statements of supporting George W. Bush because he was the candidate you'd most like to sit down and have a beer with.

People watched a tongue-tied Bush attempt to answer semi-complex debate questions on TV - yet still wound up saying that he could do the job if he hired the right advisors.

Now, ask yourself - are we better off as a nation now than we were eight years ago?

And if the answer is "No" or "Hell No" or something only David McSwane from the Rocky Mountain Collegian would put on the front page, try this - don't blame Bush.

Try instead looking at his political opponents and managers, who didn't pounce like hungry tigers on the obvious weaknesses in Bush's game.

Try the average Americans, who didn't dig deeper into the issues, speak with passion and precision, or fight as if the future of the nation was on the line.

And yes, try the media, but we're going to ask for a solid dose of precision here as well.

It's true -some of the media did a lousy job before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and modern print sources are cutting staff, with cuts in content following closely behind the pink slips.

But it wasn't the majority of the dreaded mainstream media (MSM) telling people in 2000 to vote for Ralph Nader because there was no difference between Bush and Al Gore.

Yes, there were other reasons why Gore lost, but Nader's 97,000 votes in Florida dwarfed Bush's slim margin of victory, as well as the total of the fourth and fifth-party votes that could have hurt Bush.

And Bush won more than a four-year term in 2000. He also secured the advantage of incumbency for 2004.

So, if the MSM was responsible for failing to stop Bush's invasion, even though our U.S. Rep. Mark Udall seemed to be able to see past Judy Miller's New York Times reporting, perhaps folks outside of the mainstream were actually responsible for eight years of Bush's presidency.

Oh, lighten up - we were just kidding on that one.

But there's a serious point to be made. People in 2000 were literally selling and buying the notion that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, despite the unimpeachable fact that - there was, is and always will be a difference between the two.

In other words, it's not just Congress or any form of media that must do a better job with the issues in 2008 and beyond - it's also up to the citizens.

And it's not just the presidential race that concerns us. CU students - you understand that the Colorado Legislature has quite a bit to do with your tuition or quality of education? Right?

Well, the event that actually set this editorial off was receiving e-mail from a state Senate campaign saying people didn't know there was a primary on Aug. 12.

Not only is there a local Senate primary, but there's also the most expensive U.S. House open-seat primary in the nation. That's Congress - the body that can help decide if your high school buddy will serve another term in Iraq or not.

And some of the 2008 state ballot debates might wind up nearly as hot as the Persian Gulf weather.

Young sexually active voters, whether they're pro-life or pro-choice, had better start reading up on a state Constitutional amendment proposal regarding "defining personhood." There's a state ballot measure targeting affirmative action, and the possibility of a measure that would amend the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

Expect a nasty campaign between Udall and former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer for the U.S. Senate, and voters might witness a real Old West barroom ballot brawl between pro-labor union and anti-union factions.

In conclusion, our major point is that elections really aren't won or lost on Aug. 12 or Nov. 4. Instead, it's the discourse that goes on months ahead of time.

Anybody who wants a political result can just quietly cast one ballot. Or, they can learn the issues, talk to friends and organize, use the old or new media to their advantage, and do whatever it takes to bring thousands of voters along with them.

Take a guess - which of the two tactics is most likely to win an election?