I can tell we are getting close to the election, because my email is getting more pointed as we zero in on election day, and that's been especially true on some technical subjects.

One thing that prompted a lot of jabs was talk about the federal budget deficit.

As I have discussed on the air, when President Bush leaves office, the federal debt of the US will have more than doubled in the eight years of his administration, going from over $4 trillion in early 2001 to more than $10 trillion today.

That kind of observation aggravated a number of partisans on the GOP side.

In an email to Neal Boortz that was "kindly" sent to me as well, listener Karl Brown writes that "Mr. Dupree made the outrageous statement that there was an operating surplus of the Federal budget during the final years of the Clinton administration!"

"Of course this is documented & factually incorrect," Mr. Brown concluded, labeling me a "Liberal Chameleon" and a "sycophant" for good measure.

"Why did you say there was a surplus in the second half of the Clinton administration?" demanded another listener, Matthew Laszacs.  "I used to trust your reporting and analysis."  

Karl and Matthew, all I can say is that there was a yearly surplus for the last four fiscal years of Bill Clinton's time in office.  In fiscal year 1998 it was $69 billion, FY 1999 it was $125 billion, FY 2000 was $236 billion and FY 2001 it was at $128 billion.

You can see the figures for yourself on the White House web site at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sheets/hist01z1.xls

One note - while there were "yearly" budget surpluses in the Clinton Administration, the country was still in the red overall, as I pointed out above.

While I was taking flak from the Right on a Clinton-Bush budget comparison, I was getting it from the Left on my review of the three debates between John McCain and Barack Obama.

"Why do you keep saying the results of the first two debates were a draw?" thundered listener Mike O'Neill in an email entitled "Biased Reporting."

"Every post-debate poll declared Obama the winner, some by percentages in the teens," said O'Neill. 

"What is the source of your data, and please don't say Fox?"

My answer was that while views of the debate seemed to track the polls, I didn't think either candidate smothered the other.

You certainly can make the argument though that Obama "won" the series of debates on points, mainly because he emerged in a strong, if not stronger, position than when the debates started in late September.

One more note.  At some point before Election Day, there will be a story that members of media believe that Barack Obama will win the election.   This is from a poll that's usually taken, asking the press who they think will win.

Media critics will immediately grab this to say that it is evidence of rampant media bias.  My only response will be that the issue is who does the media "think" will win, not who the media "wants" to win.

I know I won't win that argument with many of you!

But it is obvious that things are getting down to the nitty gritty, with the elections 15 days off.  Should be a fun ride.