She's pretty attractive, but it's clear she doesn't read newspapers. She shouldn't be VP.

She's so inexperienced, it's almost a joke. Actually it is a joke. Saturday Night Live even made fun of it. Just watch the link below.

And even if we do need to help out banks/wall street, why do we have to pay $700 billion all at once? They say it's the only way to get bankers to make out new loans. But instead of buying ALL the banks old loans, why can't we just pay banks to make more loans and have the government insure the new loans? Wouldn't that work as well? I don't really get why it. Is wall street using scare tactics to get main street to jump to their rescue? And why does the package have to happen right away? It's all very shady.

The fat cats on wall street have been overpaid for too long, and bailing out rich wall street bankers for bad bets on mortgages is just ridiculous. When regular folks are losing their homes, is the government really just looking out for wall street bankers, making sure they stay rich? What are we doing for regular folks? We're making regular folks pay $700 billion to the very bankers that sold them bad mortgages, the very bankers that are taking their homes away in foreclosures. I'm outraged.

He's reaching out to moderates and independent voters. He's not as much of a liberal radical as Fox News would like you to believe.

Instead of focusing on the real issues, the moderators spent half the debate re-hashing old and irrelevant issues, like why Barack doesn't often wear a flag on his lapel, his reverend's incendiary remarks, and Clinton's sniper fire comment. I couldn't stand it, I turned off the TV after 20 minutes of inane questions.

When the woman's health is at risk, abortions often need to be performed to protect the mother. The purpose is to save a life.

The Democrats are exhausting their campaign finances, and hurting each other with negative ads. Meanwhile McCain continues to gain support and finances. The DNC is nearly broke, while the RNC has more money in reserve (and who knows how much the 527 groups have). The Dems are gonna lose in November if they keep going at it with each other for much longer...

If you read the article itself, it does not have any real evidence of improper behavior. It only states that some aids were concerned about improper behavior. So why was it posted on the front page of the NY Times? It seems like the NY Times has it out for John McCain.

Check out the latest poll from Time Magazine. It shows that Barack Obama does better in a match up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton. "Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each. Put another way, McCain looks at the moment to have a narrowly better chance of beating the New York Senator than he does the relative newcomer from Illinois." We can't risk letting Hillary win the democratic nomination. Vote for Barack!

I think a lot of conservatives dislike her, and her plan for universal health care would put her at odds with many independents and republicans. Her plan plays well with the traditional democratic base, but I don't think she'll do very well in the general election. So stop voting for Hillary in the democratic primaries, please!

I'm not sure I understand your argument here - which loyalties will become evident and what's wrong with them? And what's wrong with his upbringing?

I hope he wins, cause then the Republicans will be easier to beat, come November!

Yea, it just makes the whole system more partisan. I really do hope Mike Huckabee wins the republican nomination, though. That way the Dems might actually have a shot at winning in November.