Are you serious? Are you suggesting that each and every person you have volunteered or worked with over the course of your adult life has values, and only those values, that YOU PERSONALLY ESPOUSE?

You're either a hypocrite or in total denial. Obama was questioned about people who he either knew as an acquaintence or as a religious pastor. People all across the United States attend churces where they disagree with some of what their pastor or priest says. That's why this issue died out...until Stephanopolous saw fit to revive it for precious minutes on national TV.

And as for the Ayers question, nothing more or less than a smear tactic. Barack Obama knows the man as a colleague on a board, a neighbor. Is there any evidence that he supports in any way, shape or form this man's behavior 4 decades ago?

The bottom line is always this: A black man is suspect in this sad nation and can always be labelled a traitor if, heaven forbid, he bucks the system. Obama has excelled despite his disadvantaged circumstances and he would, right now as we speak, be embraced with both arms by the Clintons if he had just waited his turn (if that ever came.) Obama doesn't play that game so well, so I guess he had to be taught a lesson.

That said, who wants to bet that Hillary STILL loses the nomination? And what will she have achieved? The real possibility of 4 more years of Bush/Cheney politics. She should also be very careful. Her job in New York may not be too secure at the rate she's going.

Really??? Obama bore a look of resigned disgust to the silliest of questions. I thought he was very patient, kind of the way you behave when the dog has peed on the rug for the 3rd time. OTOH, Hillary's smirk did nothing to shift the impression that she is disingenuous. Neither did her admission about Bosnia-gate or her tooth-pulling concession that, yes, OBama CAN beat McCain.

Read what you wrote. Again, and then read AGAIN if you have a problem with that.

You want to hold Obama accountable, in some irrational way, for Ayers. Why? Any cursory investigation of their relationship (can we call it that?) turns up nothing. But that doesn't really help when you are being quizzed about that person on national TV. Once the question comes out, these two people who know each other only tangentially are linked in the public mind. Or did you fail to see that?

Only ignorant people can't grasp how a smear operates. It has nothing to do with underlying truth but is predicated on most people only understanding a small part of the story. The truth is that there is no story. But what a good way to distract (Obama's words here) from the real issues confronting us.

McCain will simply let the Right-wing attack machine do its thing. The irony of this whole situation is that the person who can do the most damage to Obama (the by FAR most likely nominee) is the person who should want him to succeed in the GE: Clinton. But we know that's just not the case and it's not in the cards either.

Clinton must be president and if she can't be, then she'll wait out the next four years of Republican regime. Hillary's not stupid. She knows that any president in 2008 will have a hell of a time fixing the problems this country faces. If she weren't already 60, she'd be waiting out the next four years or trying for governor instead. She may end up doing that anyway since the nomination looks very unlikely.

If you really want to, why not do it? Get yourself stitched and siliconed and sucked out if you want. But why, why, why would anyone tell their small children any details about surgery? Just say, "I had a little problem and I needed to get it fixed. It makes me feel better." Period. Honestly, kids really don't care and no, they don't need to know how mommy feels unhappy with her less-than-perfect body.

Oh, never mind then.

That small blowhard may staunchly defend his stupid questions. I'm sure the equally intellectually-lazy hack Gibson may do the same. All I know is that the Philly debates were a giant waste of time. Thank god I taped it and didn't bother to watch live. In the next few days, I'm sure Steph and Gib will hear plenty about the debate debacle and how many Americans allegedly appreciate what they achieved.

You wrote that personality is the only way to distinguish these two candidates. Really? What about sex organs? Melanin content? Sorry, I had to say that.

Personally, I would have preferred to hear more about how, in detail, each candidate intended to fund all of the grand proposals given our miserable economy. I'd also like to hear more of their respective opinions about what we can do about Iraq and general security in the world. There are many foreign affairs issues to delve into and it would have been a far better "debate" to have each discuss their priorities.

No, it's inappropriate to speak with young children about your body issues. That is really unfair to do to a young child and I, for one, don't believe that many mothers bring their children to the plastic surgeon's office. This doctor probably just made that part up as a ploy to suck in gullible parents.

Children really don't understand negative self-concept...for a little while. The only conversation that should take place with a young child is one that is quite short, positive and plays down the post-surgery issues.

If you love him/her and are responsible and good people, the child will be happy to be with you. If not, they won't.