Much of the "Dogma" in the Catholic church is built on "political whims of the times." In the beginning church leaders and priests married.

Before 1900 the offical church dogma, did not support the current dogma that "human life begins at conception", but was instead based on Aristotle's "Theroy of Potentialism". Abortion was not even considerd a "mortal' (serous sin), and was only considered a venial (slight sin) after quickening (30 days for female fetus and 40 days for male fetus).

In 1900 The Church inshrined "Life Begins at conception"into the ofical church Dogma to support it's recntly created dogma of the 'Immacualte Conception"( the belief that Mary's mother was without sin when Mary was conceived.)

This dogma is the churches basis for the stand agansit birth control and abortion. Today majority of Catholics ignore this dogma anyway.

Didn't Jacquline Kennedy have an advanced degree or was it just that her Europeon educton was jsut mroe advanced. Jacqueine often intrduced her husband Jack when in foreing countries, as she spoke several languages. Seh also made trh United States more aware of the arts and cuture. What about Eleonor Roosevelt? She certanily did nto stand behind her man, and when she did she was the one pushing many of his domestic policies, and she was critized for it. She went on to lead the United Nations.

Women became less vocal in politics in the 1950s, when a

conservative movement swept the country and sent them beind the pants and to the burbs. Its time for poltics to reflect real relationships. Smart women, higly educated women ahve always given up their careers to raise children and many still do.

I saw these wives on Maria Shriver's show. Edwards was clearly the brightest or at least most articualate. Obama clearly is bright and represents career mothers today. Romney represents he smart woman who gave up a career to raise children. McCain is tightly wond as is her husband. I'm waiting for both of them to snap. Thompsons wife did not appear to be a bimbo, but was clearly intimidated by the smarter, older, confident women ( Obama, Romney, Edwards).

Intlligent Design ignores intelligent scientific thinking. Those being taught intelligent dsing are being dumbed down. What is even more frightening is that many of the Republican candidates do not believe in evolution. The U.S. is already loosing its advantge in in sceince and education. If we continue to have a leaders who do not beleive in science, then the U.S. is destined to go down the tubes.

Political activists and issue advocacy groups have always used this technique to make sure a particular issue gets attention and can be answered by the speaking for or a cadidate suporitng a particular issue. I listen to "Talk of the Nation" and other local shows on NPR occasinally. I can alwasy tell when a caller is a was plant. I know as a former political activist for a partcular issue, that we our group had volunteers to do this when a representative from our organzation adn the opposing organzation was going to be answering questins on these shows. Political campaigns are no different. Sometimes issues that need discussion don't get the attention, and a planed question gives the candidate the opportunity to discss it.

I not defending Hillary, as I do not plan to vote for her, but what her campaign did is not unusal.

I guess I am one of those 1% political junkie who watched this debate. I watch these debts because I discovered, both Salon and other pundits is usually biased and selective in their reporting of these debates. I did not expect much from a debate on CNN but was surprised that the question were good and Wolf did try to keep a very enthusiastic audience under control. The last half which was questions from the audience was much better. I was surprised as those questions were the best audience questions I have heard to date. Except the CNN woman, holding the microphone kept attaching additional comments to their questions pushing the questions in a certain direction. The question came from a diverse group of people.

I am an Obama supporter and I was very disappointed with this performance in this debate. Since I only saw most of the last half he appeared to be upset about something. Hillary was clearly on top of this this time. When Hillary was attacked the the audience booed. I really think Obama is making a mistake getting into the attack politics like Edwards. It worked last debate because he clearly address his strength in a positive way after an attack, this time it did not work that way.

Biden & Dodd are clearly upset by these attacks. Biden and Doddd always give the clearest most precise answers. When a women in the audeince asked the question on criteria for selection of Supreme Court Justices, and the CNN anchor added the abortion litmus test to the question, Biden did a great job explaining the "privacy clause", preventing a trap on abortion. His answer also helped the other candidates lay out a clear answer.

The only thing new learned from the debts is how well a candidate might do againist a republican in debates. Good practice I guess.

I'll tell you why. It is age. Even those of us who "had" great legs in our 20s , 30s, 40s, and early 50s usually migrate to low shoes and pants suits after 55. Skirts just don't look good in low shoes,and legs start losing thier appeal. The "boys" have always been able to keep their 'bad legs" under cover.

Besides what is relevant about pantsuits in a political race anyway?