As a composition and literature professor (and one-time speech instructor), I have to say that Obama was better at explaining and exploring the issues (and he was right), but McCain won. Obama was subtle, knowledgeable, thoughtful, and warm and humorous when appropriate. But he was too abstract and too analytical. McCain was funny, brief and to the point, simple instead of complex, and full of stories to illustrate his points--exactly what the average person, who lacks any background information about the issues, wants.

People want someone who is direct, certain, sure, and comes across as a good guy to know; someone who is smart enough but not so smart that the other person feels stupid. Reagan mastered that persona (despite being really ignorant or maybe because of it), Carter didn't. Bush I and Dukakis didn't master that persona, Clinton did (despite being really smart and knowledgeable). Bush II seemed to find that persona, Gore and Kerry didn't. Hillary was getting there with some help from Bubba.

We don't need to guess who won the general elections. I'm worried.

I'd like to point out that Linda is bemoaning the fact that our candidate is too smart.

I appreciate Clintonistas for serving as living examples of the Democratic Party's incestuous servitude to the GOP over the last 40 years.

I watched the 2 hours at Saddleback last night. When I heard Barack would go first, I thought, sure, and McCain is just going to sit quietly in a room by himself. No way. He was so ready and started answering questions that were not yet asked. When the subject came to teacher merit, he says "Yes, yes and yes". Excuse me but that was just one question. Then later he asked when Warren would get to the Supreme Court. As someone earlier mentioned -would his Rovian team ever permit him not to know the questions going into his "must motivate my base" forum? Of course not. He was well prepared by knowing what he would be asked, so he could give those "crisp" answers.

As to the abortion issue. I wish Obama would end this whole ridiculous argument as follows. As long as men and women continue to have sex, women will get pregnant, and some women will not want a child. SO they will find a way to have an abortion regardless of what the law says. The issue then becomes, where will they have this abortion, in an antiseptic hospital with medical assistance, or in a back alley by a butcher?

The issue isn't conception peoplehood, it's which place will the abortion be performed?

It's hard to understand why the public would believe that the views of a candidate who is clearly operating within the posthypnotic suggestions planted by his communist capters would bear any resemblance to what his subsequent policies will be.

"Libs" don't get to decide these things because the only people who should are the people doing them. It does not affect your marriage if two guys want to marry each other just as it does not affect your children if some woman you don't even know has an abortion. It is no more my business then it is yours becuase it doesn't affect me either. So many conservatives have made sex some kind of litmus test for public office. Especiallly in regards to other people's sex lives. And often at the expense of more pressing issues that affect everyone regardless of party or beleifs.

So here we have one of the biggest events of the political season, with three powerful men, grown men, serious men, on the national stage, in almost-matching dark suits, pastel dress shirts ... and no neckties.

It's tacky when Bill Gates does it, but at least he has the excuse of being a nerd, often with an audience of nerds as well.

But for these guys, in this setting, it just looks sloppy.

It should be pretty clear for anybody who is willing to take an honest look at what actually happened last night, that Obama attempted to answer ALL of the questions as honestly and directly as he could, while McBush told idiot stories and cracked jokes in order to avoid answering MOST of the questions.

I'm an old-fashioned, bleeding-heart, ultra-liberal, atheist, feminist, who has not served the GOP in any way since I learned to think and feel at the same time.

I supported Clinton because, as Paul Krugman documented, she is more liberal than Obama. And, if you're worried about the Democrats' 40 year servitude, incestuous or otherwise, to the GOP you supported the wrong candidate.

Who said the Republicans were the party of ideas over the last decades, that Reagan marked a seminal change? Who voted for FISA, for Dick Cheney's energy bill, took money from Exelon and Goldman-Sachs and oil company executives and a slum landlord named Rezko? Who used the infamous Harry and Louise to criticize a rival's universal health care plan while his own left out millions?

Who claims to want a post-partisan relationship with Republicans to get things done, after making concessions (see above) that so far seem to suggest giving away half the farm before negotiations begin?

Obama is better than McCain on the issues, but that's not saying a whole hell of a lot.

By your reasoning, only people in the armed forces should decide when to fight, etc. Poppycock. If a guy wants to marry his sister (or his dog for that matter) it doesn't affect me either, but pa-leeze. Or if a guy in another state murders another person it doesn't affect me either, but pa-leeze. You need to get your arguments in order. Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Libs such as yourself want to change that. Who's sticking who's nose in who's bedroom by wanting to change the status quo? There are profound implications throughout society if marriage is redefined (not just between the 2 getting married). And you've yet to answer whether an 8 1/2 month old in the womb is a worthless piece of tissue or a person.