Interesting link. Edwards definitely hit a zinger. Obama, not so much. Yet another display of his ignorance when it comes to energy issues, and his eagerness to please non-oil energy corporations (I wonder how much coal and nuke money he's taken in the form of bribes, er, "campaign contributions"). But he seemed even more eager to change the subject, circle round the question, and talk about anything but nuclear power and his support of it. At least he was honest for a nanosecond so we could see what he really thinks. When it comes down to it, this guy clearly doesn't give a rat's ass about the environment. It's just something to be negotiated away in favor of "more important" issues.

Clinton took a decidedly uncourageous stand, avoiding the question like a real pro. Wishy wishy washy, but that's pretty much what I've come expect from her. Stick finger in air, gauge wind direction, and speak out of both sides of mouth, saying nothing and trying to please everyone. Her answer boils down to this: "We're America, we'll find a techno-fix that will make all that icky nuclear waste magically disappear. It'll be a win-win!" Okey dokey.

It was very important for the presidential candidate to address the questions from YouTube and the general public.  However, thus far, most media attention has focused on the war in Iraq and recent scandals in the White House.  There are critical topics of great importance that I would like to see our candidate address in the future, especially with global poverty. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, this administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop.  According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition.  However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this "war on terror."  And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars.  It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

Part of the reason so few people are involved with politics is that it's considered dull. Cutesy videos and jokes on stage (Like when Biden said the thing he liked most about Kucinich was his wife) get people interested in the process. This is the first debate my wife, who hates politics, watched and she said she enjoyed it a lot.

The snowman video gave a face to an otherwise amorphous problem, and elicited a great answer. It's this sort of thing that we're going to see more of, and I think it's wonderful.

I would have liked to have asked if anyone is prepared to run an environmentally friendly/carbon neutral campaign, something like what was done for the live earth concerts.

>Kuchinich goes the hell off.

You want to elucidate this? He speaks pretty clearly in favor of alternatives, ties fossil fuels to the fossil fuel companies, and oil to war. Which part of this is "off"?

It's an expression the kids use, Gar.

grist.org

means that he ranted.  it doesn't mean he was off the mark.  get with it old man.

Edwards' campaign is carbon-neutral, no?

Edwards says no to nukes.  Obama says that nukes should be part of the mix.

Hillary says conservation, efficiency, and technological inovation.  Payed for by shifting the subsidies for oil companies to the effort.

She leaves a window for nuclear.  If innovation can solve the waste and cost issues, fine.

That comes back to a compromise.  Let thenuclear industry build a few new waste eating, less expensive, demonstrably fail safe reactors as a test project.  Examine the results and then reconsider nuclear.  Can it then be done safely and cost effectively.

This is why Hillary is presidential.  Edwards ought to be Attorney general.  Gore should be energy secretary.  Obama should be VP.  This is how leadership works.  The leader has the full picture, the people on her team have their own areas of competence.

It has notrhing to do with talking out of both sides of ones mouth or putting a finger in the wind.  It has to do with looking at the big picture.

I wish Edwards hadn't mentioned cellulosic ethanol, but at least hillary did not tout corn ethanol.

No one mentioned the GM Volt.  That name ought to have been dropped.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Also -

I prefer Edwards for president, partly he gets climate change better. Hillary did help her case, but climate change is not where her heart lies, and we need more passion for dealing with it at the top.  

But we get Hillary, then Richardson for either EPA Administrator or Education Secretary.  Edwards for Health and Human Services. Biden for Defense.

Edwards is used to battling corporate power excess, he would be great as attorney general.

Another Teddy Roosevelt.  but he can't win the presidency for sure.  Hillary will surely beat Guliani or Thompson.

Bill ought to be secretary of state.  Make it official.  world peace and prosperity will follow.

We need to deal with massive party defection now.  Frustrated democrats are going back to naderism.  it's a trend that might let the pub's choice be appointed again.  this has to be a shut out landslide for hillary.

Fraudulent election practices give the Rove machine an extra 5 percent in the end.  These last two elections were stolen, that is clear.  The 2000 election was an appointment, not an election.

As Neil Young puts it.  "We need a clean win to regain confidence."

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Senator Gravel says that we should tax consumption, rather than income.  In other words, make it cheaper to employ people (the worker gets the same take-home income at less cost to the employer) and make it more expensive to buy crap.  This isn't quite the same as the idea, put forth in Natural Capitalism and other places, of shifting the tax burden away from labor and onto resource use, but it's close.

what's loopy about that?