I would've voted for him if he wasn't so gung-ho about the "environmental issue," something made up by the liberal socialists to push through their agendas (sorta like Bush using terrorism to push the war with Iraq and Iran).

I like his answer on the environment, but his answer of the environment and poverty seemed surprisingly bland, given that he's the Two Americas guy. I heard Majora Carter, from Sustainable South Bronx, speak yesterday, and one part of helping that community was getting them involved in, as she calls it, Greening the Ghetto. Edwards could have a win-win if he moved many of the needed green collar jobs into poor neighborhoods of color. His response to Bill's question of why his health care plan was best was odd, too, as he seemed to want to keep talking about Hillary's plan, about how it was like his, but how she'd let Pharma and Insurance have their way. He did finally say "Universal Health Care", which is the catch phrase that many want to hear. All in all, I'd say he hit a solid double, maybe a triple. At this stage he needs a few of those.

Oldman, Huh? I think your tinfoil hat is too tight.

In the latest Zogby poll , Edwards placed somewhere in the middle in terms of being an objectionable candidate.

Hillary earns the #1 spot as most objectionable.

I mention this here due to Norm's recent posting of an Olbermann clip portraying Clinton as being less objectionable than the leading Republican candidates. In fact, Giuliani and Romney are right in the middle in terms of acceptability.

"Old man take a look at my life, I'm a lot like you were." -Neil Young

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest, oldman, that there was a time in your past when you believed in something because you knew it was the right thing to believe in.

Maybe it was the moment when you, like Neil, were appalled when you saw National Guard troops in Kent State fire on students, or when you saw monks set themselves on fire.

Try to remember what it felt like when older people told you that you were a young fool who didn't understand the way the world really works.

Peace.

really.

"And, whether they can trust you." Yes, that's true. I'm not really even sure why, at this point, but I just don't trust that guy.

I find it disturbing to me that the two democratic candidates that people have their eye on aren't appealing to me at all. Hillary will do anything to win, and say whatever to win, and that reminds me of bush last election. The only reason I want to vote for her is because she is Bill Clinton's wife, and they seem to share ideals, and have a lot of power to get things done.

Edwards is a horrible public speaker, and when he says "and whether they can trust you," that totally rules him out in my opinion. He just smiles and nods . . . and lately he has seemed to be whining. He has some good things to say, but it's the same as all the rest, and he's more of just a pretty boy.

Obama is a great public speaker, but seems to have been on vacation the last 2 months. He hasn't been on TV, hasn't stirred any press . . . and I think he's too careful of making mistakes so he states his opinions very broadly, and that doesn't really give him a face in the campaign.

Reagrding Ethanol:

Edwards makes a fair case that the delivery infrastructure could be implemented now, and later used to transport more energy-efficient fuels.

Maher is 100% correct when he says that promoting Corn-based ethanol is pure politics, to gain Midwestern support.

I love the midwest (born & raised), but sugar is 8 TIMES more efficient than corn. MIT is working on micro-organisms (genetically modified bacteria) that are 100 TIMES more efficient than that.

Getting us stuck in a pro-corn mindset will only hinder true alternative energy progress. Beware the corn mafia: yes they exist. I believe they are now lobbying to put high-fructose corn syrup in shampoos and diet pills.

Regarding the healthcare issue: I've yet to hear what his plan is, much less what makes it better than someone else's.

I don't need a Ross Perot-esque lecture, just the following points:

• what coverage is offered
• who gonna pay?
• what about future R&D?

Edwards needs to answer those three questions, and he needs to answer them in informative soundbites.

Remember: if he won't tell me about his plan, pundits at Fox News will. If he wants people to agree with his position, he needs to be the one selling it.

Norm: I would love to know why this man is your top pick, compared to a Kucinich or Gravel. I sincerely hope "he's the only one who might win" is not one of your reasons. WE decide who to elect, not THEM. Pick the RIGHT candidate, not the popular one with mass appeal.

Case in point: we Ron Paul wackos got our guy on the map with grassroots support. There's no reason Kucinich and Gravel supporters can't do the same.

Do we want Hillary v. Rudy in 08? Hell no. Not the conservatives, not the liberals. So why does it look like it might happen? Because we are so focused on winning, we've lost sight of the reason we want to win in the first place- to fix our messed up, once great, now fallen, Nero fiddling as the city burns, country.

Phew. I think I just had an orgasm.

Edwards, the paper mache masked crusader. How could you not see through that?

What's wrong with socialist liberals, and which agendum is unacceptable to you, Viejo?

Hey, Vecchio, are you disembodied? You don't live in the/an environment? Maybe you're dead already, brain-dead?