The irrelevant questions irk me to death. I don't care about a pin. I don't care about who is pastor is. I don't care about what soda he drinks. I don't care that he smokes. I also don't care for Clintons bantering about nonsensical issues.

I'll be voting next week (finally!) and I have changed my vote from Clinton to OBama. I saw one of the commercials she ran here in PA and it was annoying beyond belief. She is starting to sound like my nagging mother in law.

I was really annoyed at the American Flag question. What? Because they don't wear flag pins at photo ops they are un-American? That is so stupid. I would have rather they asked questions about education or the environment instead of wasting time on stupid questions. That said they both did a great job holding their own last night. I don't think either of them will want the other as their VP, though.

The debate was ridiculous. Well the first half was. I agree Liberty when they asked Obama if Rev. Wright loved America as much...I was just annoyed beyond belief. This particular debate (if that's what you can call it) was absolutely biased against Obama. That being said there have been other debates that have been absolutely biased against Hillary. As far as the ISSUES I thought they both handled themselves well. She is always stellar when it comes to debating the issues, having a plan, and pointing out her solution. He seemed annoyed at the whole proceeding, but honestly I can't blame him at all. Once the clown show part of the debate was over I thought he handled himself well. I did like that they seemed more united than in the past (as united as possible anyway). No matter which one of them gets the bid the loser is going to have to soothe the half of the country that is unhappy by that choice. They both made it very clear that the other one was a viable candidate and that they would support each other. That was refreshing.

I have done a fair amount of research on both of the Democratic candidates and am still failing to find any major policy differences between the two. I understand that the are different in demeanor, experience, etc. However, is there anyone out there who can point out some of their major policy differences, or do they just not really have any?

votechooser.com

It will help you figure out the little differences between the candidates and who best fits you. I did know another one from some radio station in minnesota, but can't remember it.

Thanks, skinnymarie. I know my personal beliefs align the most with McCain, actually, but I am still curious as to some of the major policy differences between the two Dems. I will check it out and see if it helps, though.

So, from that I'm getting that the only differences are that Obama thinks invading Iraq was a mistake and Clinton doesn't, which I pretty much knew, but they have the same plans for going forward with Iraq, so I don't see how that affects policy much. According to vote chooser, it also seems like Obama wants wider tax cuts. Those seem to be the only two differences it gave me. It was helpful, skinnymarie, but I'm still thinking the reason the Democratic primary is coming down to personality/charisma/experience, etc. is that the candidates are similar on policy issues.

I agree lilkimbo. I think a person choosing between the democratic candidates is going to end up choosing which one they just LIKE better as a person. Or maybe the one they can't stand the least.

I couldn't watch the whole debate--all of the irrelevant questions were totally stupid (God, what was next? "Boxers or briefs?" "Coke or Pepsi?" "New York Super Fudge Chunk or Chunky Monkey?") and to be honest, I'm getting sick of all of this election coverage. Hell, I'm a Democrat and I'm getting sick of seeing both Clinton and Obama and never hearing the end of "Bittergate" and blah blah blah!!

...and now I'm really craving some New York Super Fudge Chunk. Ughhhhhh...

Um...did anyone else but me think it was WILDLY inappropriate that George Stephanopoulos (Former Clinton Advisor) was the moderator??? What is next? Is Oprah going to moderate the next debate and Clinton a series of highly irrelevant questions? Journalism is dead in this country. So sad.

First half of debate - ridiculous and a waste of time!

My blood is boiling just thinking about the questions that were raised. I'm ready to get past these pesky obstacles and get down to the nitty gritty. Anyone else?

I am trying to stay out of the discussion because I will probably not be voting for either in November, but I agree that yes, it is sad that a former Clinton advisor was the moderator.

Um...did anyone else but me think it was WILDLY inappropriate that George Stephanopoulos (Former Clinton Advisor) was the moderator??

YES!! I literally said "WHAT??" to my tv when they said his name.

I think they both did well, even though they were given terrible questions. I noticed that there were a few times when they would ask Obama 2 questions back to back, and then interrupt him after 15 seconds to ask another question. Nothing drives me more insane than when people ask a question, and don't listen to the answer. Then why the heck did you ask? I didn't notice them doing that to Hillary, but I am sure they did. They were unprofessional all around.

I think ABC lost sight of the fact that this is for the VOTERS to help them decide who their candidate will be.

It drives me crazy when there are such bad, off-topic questions. And, a personal pet peeve (from trials) is when someone is asked what they think someone else feels or thinks - it is just so weird!

I agree w/ lilkimbo - I've seen such little difference in the candidates, and figure they'd be trying to man the country in much the same direction, so it comes down to who I think can do it better (he seems better equipped to get compromises, she has baggage and seems party indentured) and who I personally like (those empty promises of hope people keep making fun of).

I feel bad, b/c I really liked Hillary - until she was actually running for president. She's been so negative, and at this point everything about her presence bugs the bejezus out of me. My husband was even remarking on that the other day (watching clips of her talking about hunting and doing the shot with her beer) that her pandering and personality turn him off before she can ever get an idea out.

Every time I hear Stephanopoulos's name I think of that episode of friends with the pizza delivery.

Jillness - that was also my first thought!! That Stephanopoulos is a Clinton man, it is almost as bad as having Paul Begala (another Clinton advisor). These men are open in their connections to the Clintons and their administration - so how is he able to moderate fairly?

Amybdk, I am ready!

I agree with a lot of what Clinton has to say, but I feel her stance that the President pushes the military to their will is a little scary. Yes, I do think the President needs to be a leader, but I also think it is vital that they hear realistically what the military officers have to say. To not take the ground conditions into account at all seems dangerous to me. I think pulling out of Iraq will help us, but I also think it needs to be handled in a responsible way.

It reminds me Richard Clarke and his pleading to get Bush jr. to recognize that Al Queda was a threat before 9/11, and to focus on Al Queda and not Iraq after 9/11. IMO, we really need a President who will listen to honest assessments about our problems, because only then will we find real solutions.

And ChiTownEm - I didn't see you'd already said that too...

Can someone tell me what the salary is for "middle class" and "Upper class" in Democratic terms?

I read somewhere recently that middle class is up to $350,000 (dangit, where did I read that)

syako, I love that episode!

I know! (say it like Monica)

Is that the figure the Democrats give? $350,000 ?

That is insane.

And forever I am going to hear you as Monica.

My husband says I remind him of her. (her and samantha brown apparently!) I don't know if that's a dem figure, I just read that recently and thought WTF!?!?! No wonder Lou Dobbs considers himself the middle class.

$300,000 - darn and I had such high hopes from moving from dirt poor to middle class. I didn't even know it was classification, wow upper middle class. I can dream.

But Jillness don't you think that Obama said the same thing when he said that it was the Presiden's job to set policy and the military's job to follow that policy?

My friends call me Monica too. But that is because I am a clean freak.

sweet, two monicas in the white house!

oh my after I posted that I totally saw it.

Sy, I always think of Webster's dad when I hear his name.

I'm this very strange combination of Monica and Pheobe. It's very strange.

oh yes! Webster! Whatcha talkin' about willis!

harmony, how the heck does that work? I'm monica minus the cleanliness, just OCD about everything else, and way too competitive.

Well I'm a total free spirit BUT I'm a crazy perfectionist at the same time.

It comes from being in the arts but having a military background. If there IS such a thing...I think I'm also a conservative democrat. Does that even exist?

My friends call me Monica, but I don't know why....

Stephanopoulos hasn't been popular with the Clinton crowd for years now; he became critical and that didn't sit well.

The Democrats weren't calling the middle class at $350k. They said that they would possibly increase taxes for those making more than $250,000...and McCain has said that democrats would raise taxes for the middle class America.

I just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page.

No I didn't say the democrats said that, I just read it (somewhere!!) recently and I'm racking my brain where I saw that because it completely shocked me.

Actually, McCain has said letting Bush's tax cuts lapse would be like raising taxes for middle class America. Bush's tax cuts actually cut taxes for everyone. People in the 15% ($0-$26,250) bracket were cut down to 10%, 28% ($26,250-$53,550) to 25%, 31% ($53,550-$132,600) to 28%, 36% ($132,600-$288,350) to 33% and 39.6% ($288,350 and up) to 35%.

So, taking away these tax cuts and defaulting back to the old tax rates would be like a tax increase in McCain's eyes.

Thanks for the percentages lil!

dang brackets and taxes

But if you agree with part of Bush's tax cuts but not all of them, then you have to disregard the whole thing.

Obama and I believe Hillary's plans would cut taxes for the middle class, and not raise them for anyone under $250,000.

You can't argue that Bush's financial plans have worked. We have a huge deficit and more Americans are making less. Infrastructure like bridges and roads are literally falling apart. More people are working in each household, and yet American families are struggling because of inflation. Inflation in March rose faster than it has in 33 years! 33 YEARS! You can't ignore the fact that our tax reductions and over spending have caused us to borrow to the point where the dollar is dying. The Republicans had their chance, and it failed miserably. It is time for a new strategy, because I don't think our country could survive more of the same.

We will have to pay for the things Bush has been buying on credit eventually. To say he cut taxes isn't realistic, because it forces the raising of taxes in the future.

Well, Bush's tax cuts may have worked had the federal government not also drastically increased its spending. If you actually read what I said, no where in it did I state that Bush's economic policies worked. I was stating that McCain doesn't want to repeal the tax cuts because doing so would cause an increase in taxes for everyone. Thanks for telling me that I can't argue what I'm not even trying to argue.

And he did temporarily cut taxes, so to say he cut taxes is realistic. To say he permanently cut taxes is unrealistic.

(Sorry for the three separate comments.)

The cutting of taxes does not necessarily lead to the raising of taxes in the future, if expenses are cut as well. In Bush's case this did not happen. But, the tax cuts themselves did not "force the raising of taxes in the future."

I was saying the collective "you", not you specifically. I will watch for that in the future, yowza.

"The cutting of taxes does not necessarily lead to the raising of taxes in the future, if expenses are cut as well."

True, but expenses weren't cut, and so Bush DID force the raising of taxes in the future. If McCain says that he won't raise taxes, he is simply delaying the inevitable. We need to pay for what we have already spent at some point. It is unavoidable. Billions have already been spent.

My point is that the Republican strategy that Bush put forth and that McCain is endorsing will only increase our debt.

"Well, Bush's tax cuts may have worked had the federal government not also drastically increased its spending."
This confuses me: the tax cuts are Bush's but the increased spending is 'the federal government'... couldn't it also be the federal tax cuts and the Bush government/administration drastically increased spending? Is he actually responsible for one and not the other?

Jillness, as a Conservative I am all for lower federal taxes, but I agree that Bush did it incorrectly by not cutting programs. I believe that is part of McCains program, to cut programs AND keep the tax cuts.

Doesn't Obama and Hilary want to add federal programs?