Having lost my candidate, Edwards, I watched this debate with great interest. I can honestly say that I'm still undecided for whom to vote, despite my primary being only 12 days away.

Anyway, CNN was godawful. First, could they have plastered the CNN logo any more frequently in the background? I'm surprised they didn't tattoo it onto Clinton's and Obama's foreheads. Second, I found the constantly changing copy on the bottom of the screen to be very distracting. It changed from "CNN" to "Politico" to "Los Angeles Times" in one area, with frequently changing captions along the entire bottom which often referred us to CNN's website.

On that last point, why was Wolf Blitzer constantly telling viewers that we could follow the debate on CNN's website? Earth to Blitzer: we viewers are watching the debate now, on television. If we wanted to watch it on our computers, we'd already be doing that.

Lastly, Blitzer reminded me of the obnoxious little kid on the playground who tries to goad two other kids into fighting. "He took a swipe at you!" "Weren't you naive?" And so on. Wolf Blitzer, the debate is not about you! Check your ego somewhere behind your beard and do your job, which is not to boost ratings or inspire controversy, but to elicit thougtful responses from the candidates so that the American public can be better informed in its decision-making process.

We need to bring back the League of Women Voters debates. CNN and its ilk are simply too obnoxious.

After all, she might get away without ever having to answer for her Iraq vote, correct?

A "cackle" by definition is a laugh that sounds like a hen just after she lays an egg.

Having known a few layers in my time, I can tell you that a true "cackle" is high-pitched and squawky. "Shrill" is a great description of the quality of their noise. "Shrill" means to be high-pitched (think penny whistle or tea kettle, or badly-played piccolo). As a laugh, a "cackle" is "all in the head": unsupported by air from the lungs, or the muscles in the chest and abdomen, a "cackle" often has a nasal quality to it.

HRC's laugh is full-throated, and comes from her diaphragm. Truth be told, it's a rather masculine laugh. While it's certainly loud, it's not "shrill": "Guffaw" or "hearty" or "belly laugh" is more accurate.

Those who describe it as a "cackle" are either ignorant of what the word means, or deliberately trying cast a negative-feminine stereotype.

I never thought I'd write the words "poor Wolf Blitzer." But here in Salon and everywhere else, he's been criticized for daring to press Clinton on the Iraq War. If her vote to send soldiers to their deaths wasn't naive, what was what? That was the kindest characterization, and one that Clinton encouraged by saying she hadn't voted for pre-emptive war. But as Obama politely pointed out, there was no doubt in anyone else's mind that pre-emptive war was what the Bush administration was selling. Everyone knew that war was only a matter a time after Clinton and others voted to pull the trigger on it. Blitzer had given Clinton a direct opportunity to say the vote was a mistake, but Clinton arrogantly insisted she was duped by Bush. There is no other way to characterize Clintons defense of her vote other than to say she was naive or that she supported the war or that she is a conniver.

Clinton also had another chance to explain her odd vote on the Levin amendment, and again said she "worked" with Levin. Yeah, but she voted against inspectors and diplomacy, not for them; she voted against the Levin amendment, not for it. Clinton lied, troops died. The war is not some footnote to the past eight years that she can laugh away. Note that the female moderator who asked the Levin question has not been criticized.

Clinton has lost my vote in the general. I'd rather write in Wolf Blitzer. If a female candidate can get away with irresponsibility, and avoid tough questions about her mistakes, because it makes her male questioner look mean, then this country is not ready for a woman president. Clinton, as usual, gets a free pass for lying and dodging questions. Oh yeah, it's sexist and unfair that people criticize her for her and makeup outfits, I agree. But it's the kid gloves that the media wears when dealing with her policy decisions that bother me.

Nice warm laugh, though. I can see why McCain likes her as a drinking buddy.

I'm for Obama, but I thought HR Clinton did a good job in the one-on-one; she's better in that kind of venue than in group settings, and although Obama outdoes her on his delivery and charisma, she handled herself well, if still evasively on her war vote, and wonkish on health care.

But I could vote for her if she was the Democratic nominee, although my principal problem with her candidacy is the grasstops v. grassroots style of it, and what a Clinton win would mean for the 50-state strategy of the Democrats, and building viable local and statewide parties, instead of satellites taking marching orders from the national.

Obama was resonant and smooth, but also heartfelt and sincere, while also being cool. I think people who criticize him as a lightweight are just plain wrong. He's a smart guy, he's a charismatic guy, he'd make a great leader.

The whole VP lovefest, I don't know -- I can't imagine HR Clinton being the LBJ to Obama's Kennedy, and I wouldn't want Obama doing that, I don't think it would do him justice, but watching both candidates, it's clear that they are so far above their GOP rivals, it's almost laughable to imagine any of them going up against Obama or Clinton. Romney is telegenic enough for the challenge, but he's not as quick on his feet as either of them, and his hard-right ideology won't win him many admirers among Independents. Huckabee is quick and affable and earnest, but his looney tunes ideas would get him nowhere. McCain't has his media-stoked maverick bullshit aura and back story, but when you see him talk, there's no there there -- helter-skelter eyes, a definite lack of something. Ron Paul lacks the charisma or the electability (even though he has a few very good points amid the other stuff).