I don't know what else to do but plead with fellow liberals to vote for Edwards. After the past twenty years of Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush sell offs to corporate Ameirca we need to start reversing the tide. Everything fro war profiteering to the perdatorial loans, to education and health care are all being privitized, sold off and corrupted by corporations who pay little to no taxes while being subsidized and insured with our tax dollars. The only way to remedy the war, the health care adn the debt atrocities in this country is to regulate and hold accountable those who profit off our misfortunes.

Please, those of you who support Hillary and Obama, take a look at what you are voting for. Yes, they are better then the sociopaths on the Republican ticket, but are they the best we can do on the left?

*sorry for the typos.

Norm: Where are you getting these full video clips? I would like to watch the full debate, but all I can find is sound bites (3 mins max) on the CNN site. Thanks

What's worse than people losing their homes is actually the dollar going down and us entering into a recession. Bernanke has announced that he's going to lower the interest rates again. That's going to drive a major stagflation. Why the fuck would anyone be thinking of keeping their home if they wont even have a fucking job. These problems aren't because of CitiGroup or WaMu or any of those "predators" it's the fault of their regulators for not doing their jobs. Even the Fed serves as a regulator and didn't do their job. The truth is all three of these candidates have just shown to be a bunch of clowns. Where were they three years ago? Hillary still goes on about how she's going to wave her fucking wand and freeze interest rates as though a president has the sole ability to do that. It's not going to happen. Imagine what would have to take place and how many planets would have to align for that to actually occur. Oh and the last part about Obama...wow. I'm just glad they laughed him off the stage at the end. And he's African American. Shame on you. You're what we call in Spanish "malinchista". Thanks for the clip Norm. It just beautifully transitions from addressing a race and economic issue in the beginning and then goes to a guy who goes against his own people. What a scumbag.

From the Clip given I was under the impression the Barack was saying no deep thought had gone into the bill and he thought the 30% wasn't enough. I took that to mean he didn't vote on a badly thought out bill that capped interest so high, as in he wanted the rate lower than that.

Others have taken it as the opposite.

Personally seing the Cost of running the credit cards is met by the transaction charges and fees to businesses any interest is profit. So why not cap it at official interest + a ceiling figure. Personally a figure of 8-10 % seems very reasonable as a profit margin over official rates.

Barack was saying no deep thought had gone into the bill and he thought the 30% wasn't enough. I took that to mean he didn't vote on a badly thought out bill that capped interest so high, as in he wanted the rate lower than that.

That would be nice if he'd had a choice of a lower rate he didn't and by voting against it he was saying that no limit was better than a 30% limit. His line has been one of pragmatism and compromise and yet he stands on principle or ignorance or . . . in this particular case. I suppose he could have just voted present, but no, he voted against it. His decision not to vote for it was just stupid, and thats giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I understand your reaction, Norm. But you could find bone-headed votes in the records of any of the candidates.

I will be voting on governing philosophy. And for me, the candidate who shows they can actually bring people together for change is Obama.

Democrats could learn a lot from the repubs and their voting records. (Incoming off topic rant:) Let's take Utah's liquor laws as an example. Due to 1/3 of utahn's wanting to drink, utah had to allow the sale of liquor, but limited it to private clubs for members, back around 1968. You didn't have moral repubs voting against that bill because they wanted to get rid of public drinking altogether. However, after 1968, they've further squeezed back utah's liquor laws again and again, limiting the amount of alcohol per drink, the number of drinks a person can have on the table, the manditory $4 charge to become a member of a bar, and where they can buy the liquor, even for home consumption. This year, they are planning on kicking Near beer (smirnoff ice and the like) out of grocery stores, because it encourages "young girls to drink". Next year, I wouldn't be surprised if Beer was taken out of grocery stores altogether.

Start with voting for the postion you believe in, and fine tune the laws, don't reject them if they aren't perfect.

"it encourages young girls to drink".

They've got that right!

I think someone would have to be drinking large quantities of Smirnoff Ice to find herself in a situation where she was paying more than 30% in credit card charges.

The credit card companies have every right to offer these rates as a person has to say no and choose a different card. For a federal government to set a credit limit is to deny market forces from determining a competitive rate at which higher-risk loans can be priced. When the government decides that no loan can exceed a certain percent, they spread any remaining risk of default across all loans, and in turn, all credit card rates would be artificially higher.

This is not to say that some credit cards act fraudulently and illegally when targeting individuals-- those who behave as such should be subject to punishment. This is just saying that the broad credit market, the set of all issuers and users, can determine what is fair much cheaper than a set of legislators.

John Edwards 2008...he makes the most sense on all the most important issues of the day...That's enough for me.

"...the candidate who shows they can actually bring people together for change is Obama."

Well I really don't understand how you've come to that conclusion with what we saw last night(and over the recent months)! He has become incredible devicive, wether he means to be or not.

obama is in a really precarious situation with these debates:

He has to use these debates to stem the tide of attacks with which "Billary" is charging him when they go around talking to voters. If he doesn't, then he lets them distort his record and thus his candidacy. However, if he does point out these gross misinterpretations, the media call him an unseasoned whiner. If you look at the tape, at one point during a Hillary answer she charged Obama with more than 3 false accusations of positions he took on the record. He tried to respond point by point but Wolf Blitzer didn't give him time. I admire Edwards, I really do; and I think that on some levels he is an asset to Obama in these debates because they seem to have similar goals and views of the presidency. However, the inability for Obama to receive the same amount of time to respond to fabrications and distortions is disconcerting and partly due to the presence of a third candidate.

The more I've seen Edwards the more I've liked him despite being an Obama supporter for the last year. However, when voting comes Feb 5th and Edwards is in a very distant 3rd place I cannot conceivably help Hillary win by voting for Edwards. Edwards both aids Obama and takes advantage of public misconceptions about Obama (as a trial lawyer would do): for an example, you need only watch Edwards television responses to Obama's statements on Reagan's ability to mobilize people in a non-partisan way in the early 80s.

Do I think Hillary could be an effective president? Yes. Do I trust her to try to make good on her campaign promises? yes. Do I trust her not to abuse presidential power? No. And that's why I plan to vote for Obama, a former professor of constitutional law at University of Chicago.

Well, I'm glad I caucused for Edwards, especially after seeing these clips. I was sorry to see him relegated to 3rd place after Iowa; I had heard good things about his support in New Hampshire, but it didn't come to pass.

Basically, I don't think Edwards was able to get his message out as well as Clinton and Obama. This had as much to do with the campaign workers as with the money raised. At this point, I'll watch the race unfold and support the Democratic nominee in November. I am worried that if it's Clinton, we'll be seeing more of Nader, possibly running for pres - again. (a distant worry, and hopefully unfounded.)