Ron Paul creates so much negative reaction because he combines integrity and commitment to principle with a cohesive and comprehensive plan. Not that I agree with his entire plan, but his style of governing would close the door on the money machinery that reallocates tax dollars to generate selfish benefits and voter support. For whatever reason, both the Republicans and Democrats seem to have forgotten the bedrock American success formula of personal responsibility and self-reliance. The government was not created to redistribute wealth. It was created to protect America from real foreign threat, insure peace, liberty and freedom and to enable Americans to use their freedom to create their own lives. Somehow, that scares the hell out of all the influence peddlers that believe the government was created to "fix" people's problems while moving money from taxpayers to those that support elected officials and Ron Paul is against that. No wonder he gets so much ridiculous criticism. He doesn't preach isolationism, he simply says that if we are going to go into a conflict, then we should follow some lawful procedures, vote on it and do it the right way and PAY FOR IT AS WE GO ALONG instead of continuing to kid ourselves about how we finance our government programs. Is America truly ready for personal responsibility and self-reliance or are we destined to move further and further toward managed lives? I, for one, vote for freedom and all the problems that freedom brings over the problems that come with overly active government creates. Freedom is what separates America from the rest of the world and it was and can still be what influences the world to let go of violence as a way of solving problems.

Dems keep getting trapped into an argument about whether or not the "war" is working. Meaning, are our troops making progress in reducing the violence in Iraq? Anytime they talk about this element of the Middle East problem, they are walking right into the GOP's noose. The real issue, for Dems, is to define a strategy in the Middle East that enables them to comment on Iraq without talking on whether the war is working or not and this is where the Dems continue to fail. Dems have got to outline and get behind a broader vision/strategy of what "success" means and what they are fighting FOR not just against. Americans are much more enthusiastic, over the long run, about proactive ideas not just hearing what you're against. For instance, if the Dems would beat the drumbeat of peace in the ME and the Iraq war is hurting it and come up with a new way of measuring that, then they'd be on positive, higher ground.

Giuliani is simply more Bush. He intimidates his way to the "truth" as he perceives it, surrounds himself with people who agree with him and has no real interest in understanding problems. He's smarter and tougher than the rest of us so we just need to trust him to keep us safe and do the dirty work we "know" is necessary, but don't really want to hear about. This guy will isolate America even more and act without authority in a way that will make Bush look like a lightweight.

And weren't asked about energy, energy independence, a broader foreign policy, basic economic beliefs, how to reduce inner city crime, mortgage crisis, cost of medical care, how they'll reduce taxes, how they'll really cut spending ... Amazing that CNN missed the issues that really matter.

The format of 6-9 people on stage with a total of 5-10 minutes each of talk time on a whole range of issues is ridiculous. Each candidate should appear before a small panel alone to talk on a specific issue. They should get more specific questions with follow-up until the panel is satisfied they got a real answer. This video should then be edited to show real contrasts and then have individual 10 minute debates between 2-3 candidates at a time on a specific topic with a real format. An opening statement ... a reaction ... a rebuttal ... What we have now is simply fighting for sound bites and trying to sink your opponent. Aren't we smarter than this?

Hagel is echoing what the bulk of the nation feels in the gut about Bush and what has happened under his administration. It feels like Hagel is winding up for some type of run and hopefully it's with Bloomberg. This country needs an honest and fair three party system to keep the two parties we have now more honest and focused on who they really are instead of attacking the other side.

Once and for all, America needs a real battle between the conservative and liberal perspective with a real choice for a change between people that are absolutely committed to their principles so the vote will be on the direction of the country and not on the personality of the candidate. They're both odd enough to not win on charisma alone. I don't agree with either one of them on a whole host of issues, although ideologically I'm a conservative that believes the Federal Government needs to shrink dramatically, but I find it much more interesting listening to the two of them because they focus entirely on principles and it really makes you think about real policy and cause and effect. Is America mature enough to ask for candidates that bring ideas and not drama to the show? Are we truly interested in a debate on the direction of the country, big government vs. small, self reliance and personal responsibility vs. collective government organized success sharing? I doubt it ... when news stories about Paris Hilton, Brittany

Spears, Anna Nicole Smith and Pitt/Jolie get 100 times more coverage than the ideas of the only two principled men in the race, then America is clearly demonstrating its addiction to pop tart culture and we'll continue to serve up pop tart candidates.