Democratic voters are making it clear that they have not yet had enough of Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Obama personality politics. They apparently want more union-busting, more corporate raping and pillaging, more gutting of the Bill of Rights, etc. etc. etc.

Maybe thirty more years of this and the American people will finally be ready to vote their own interests. Can't say I'm real hopeful though that Idiot Nation will ever smarten up . . .

Blitzer is completely humorless.

Union members were, according to Randi Rhodes, intimidated into not caucusing for pro-union Edwards.

Edwards may be well-rehearsed, as all the viable candidates are at this point, but he seems to have core convictions that Obama and Clinton either lack or have already declared are available for barter. If he doesn't do well in this election, it's not because he's an unworthy candidate, but may be because the media have shut him out. I'm voting for him on Super Tuesday. Clinton is a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate America, and Obama is Clinton Lite. IMHO, of course.

The American electoral system seems deliberately set up to preclude any possible chance of the best candidate for office winning the race.

Edwards and Gravel are clearly the best possible choices, in my opinion, and yet the system is such that neither has an honest shot at the top job.

The easily led/bought mainstream media, the caucuses and the college electoral system, not to mention the ridiculously easy to rig electronic voting booths, would dishearten and disillusion even the most optimistic voter.

In another thread pedantsareus posted the quote: "It doesn't matter which party you vote for, the Government always gets elected" and it resonated hard and loud with me.

Edwards is a good man and Gravel is a good man both have passion and experience and little to no chance of becoming President.

Americans will NEVER get the chance to vote for a good, passionate, honest politician. The system just seems not to be set up that way.

A moratorium? lol. That's like asking for a financial crisis not to mention how absurd it would be for a president to break a contract that's privately made with a bank. Freezing the interest rates would only push the problem farther and farther and could actually be worse for the economy as a whole. Not only would that be a ridiculous contract violation but it's not feasible. The economy has to purge. There is no "nice" was out. It's like the mess in Iraq. Don't stay and prolong the inevitable get the fuck out and deal with a bad decision.

What a great interview. I think Blitzer did a good job, and Edwards did too.

Edwards' response to Hillary Clinton was perfect. "Managing a bureaucracy"? She has got to be kidding. She has zero experience managing a bureaucracy anyway, so I can't see how she claims experience in that area. It's like some academics I know, who want you to assume that because they've never published, they must be spectacular teachers. HRC is uninspiring as a politician, so she must be great about executive leadership. Hooey.

The Times analysis is also wrong. Edwards is not losing Democratic support because he's "too angry". He's losing because the party is coalescing around two candidates it likes more. Unlike the Republican party, the Democratic party has three candidates who are liked or viewed favorably by most of the party. Most Democrats would be thrilled to support Edwards, even though most may like another candidate more.

"A moratorium? lol. That's like asking for a financial crisis not to mention how absurd it would be for a president to break a contract that's privately made with a bank."

Have you ever heard of bankruptcy? The law allows for all kinds of restructuring and renegotiations of private contracts, in the event that people and businesses aren't going to be able to pay. The whole point is that people are being foreclosed on anyway. If this can somehow be prevented, both the banks and the home owners will be a lot better off. If the home owners have to lose all their equity, and the banks have to unload forclosed homes in this environment, the general hit to all involved is going to be devastating.

Dende, you've made some really strong points.

I think the system supports candidates with money, a name and star quality. It's basically a popularity contest because the average American isn't informed enough/doesn't care enough. It's basically star search without Ed McMahon.

Does anyone have any proof that the Dem. Party is dictating the outcome? Does Hillary have a lot of Senators and Congresspeople campaigning for her? I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't think it's happening in any large proportion.

Personally I'm very happy with the choices the Democratic Party has this time around. Let's not forget the days of Mondale and Dukakis, everybody... I'm even more happy with the choices the Republicans have this time around ;-)

I hate how people are combining Reagan, Bush1, Bush2 and Clinton! How were Reagan's and Clinton's economic policies similar again?! As far as the War we can trace that back to before Jimmy Carter/the fall of the Shah, really. Back to the nationalization of Iranian Oil vs. British and American Interests - Were we blind? I guess in the end we thought religious zealots were better than communists, being religious zealots ourselves...

I would "love" to see the major banks go bankrupt... Imagine the crisis we'd have then. Why do you think the EU is pouring money into the banking system as well? It's the only way investments can continue. It's the whole system that requires a growth of X% that's broken.

It's funny how when things don't pan out that the banks get bailouts and poor saps who borrow money for homes or higher education remain indentured servants for the rest of their lives...

a couple of comments (1) The American people dont know their own history (never mind world history) as long as this is true, the comparisons of past presidents and their accomplishments are meaningless and voters will continue to be unable to vote for their own self interest. (2) as far as the economic crisis, freezing the rates would do nothing at best, worsen the situation at worst. Our entire economic system is suffering from from a chronic addiction to debt. Ever since 2001 and the dot-com collapse our economy has been on autopilot,k financing itself through the debt markets. But like all debt, it has to eventually bee paid for, and americans never had the cash to pay for it all, so the chicken is coming home to roost. Nothing short of a total market correction will change this, and the correction in the money markets is and going to get ever more brutal. If you follow financial news you are probably aware that Ambac, the 2nd largest mortgage insurance company just got its credit downgraded, my guess is that in the next week the rest of the companies in that market will get downgraded as well, leading to an even more severe contraction in credit. A lower interest rate and a temporary freeze on mortgages is not going to solve that kind of problem, not even by a little. Thats like your credit card company giving you 3 extra months to come up with a payment, sure you have more time to pay up, but you still have to come up with the money, and the fundamental problem right now is that America does not have the money to pay for all it has borrowed.

People that bought houses irresponsibly have to lose their house. It's the sane and healthy thing to let happen. In fact most all ready lost all equity. Yes bankruptcy can happen for purchase money loans but not if they've already refinanced their properties. Have you forgotten that the bankcruptcy laws have changed. You could still do a refi but the bankruptcy wont protect the homeowner. Look, in this whole mess both banks and individual buyers are to blame. The banks made irresponsible loans to people who did not qualify to buy their properties. I've heard of people who make 30K a year buying homes for 600K. What the fuck were they thinking?! My uncle, in his infinite wisdom, bought a million dollar home (I guess his dick was just that small) and bought into that 1% gimmick. I hope he's religious because all he's going to have left is a prayer. The economy needs to purge. Period. There's really nothing that can be done. All that needs to happen has already occured. Now they're starting to check people's taxes and verfying how much people make. People experience an unhealthy boom and then expect cotton balls to appear magically out of nowhere so that their landing is as soft and undamaging as possible. The only people that wont lose their homes to foreclosure are those that bought responsibly. Delaying the inevitable is unhealthy.

I love Edwards and am voting for him in the vain hope maybe, just maybe. If he doesn't get the nomination - all I'm hoping is a Democrat - Hillary or Obama....

President Bush has also decided to send back a percentage of the taxes you've paid so that you spend it in the economy and thus stimulate it. What about if people save it Mr. President? Will that help in any way? What about if people use it to pay off the debt they've accumulated? Gawd he's a nutjob!

I think Bush thinks he will have a reprise of his earlier success - when everyone got all excited when he gave tax cuts to the rich and a meaningless rebate to everyone... That was at Paul O'Neill's suggestion (when O'Neill was against more super wealthy tax cuts - of course, he was out).
I was on yahoo comment boards at the time saying it was an insult to the middle class - throwing them a bone when it was all about taking care of his friends and the big comment from the Bush supporters was "then give yours back."

throwing them a bone when it was all about taking care of his friends and the big comment from the Bush supporters was "then give yours back."

jillbryant2003

Cheap whores the whole lot of 'em. Give them a few hundred bucks and you can f"ck 'em for eight years.

LOL @ Stupid Git.

crossed fingers hoping that super tuesday is swept by Edwards