Hmm........

Yes, I did see that part of the debate. Here is my summary:

Obama starts out with vague and beefless statements about change for the better. Of course, the audience cheered his empty words, because that's what the audience wants - along with the rest of the American people.

Hillary brings the debate back to reality - by attacking Obama's recent statements on Reagan. I don't think anyone knows what Obama actually said; the crowd was against Hillary, but at least one New York Times columnist agreed with her that Obama praised Reagan a little too zealously (I think it was Paul Krugman). Anyway, Hillary makes claims that Obama denies, and they start to quibble over the exact words Obama used. Hillary tries to counter, but then Obama shifts the argument to his strong suit - vacuity. He puts out some beefless remark about how Hillary is moving against the direction America is going (or something like that - I'm not sure exactly what he said, but I believe that was implied somewhere in his speech). He also made some personal attacks of his own. When Hillary tried again to counter, the crowd booed her.

Finally, Edwards, the prince of vacuity, says that HE is the one who won't be petty like Obama and Hillary are.

That was the interesting part of the debate. This is the lesson I draw from it: The level of rational discourse in our country is dramatically low. The fact that so many Americans would support a candidate as empty as Obama is disappointing. Sure, he's the face of change - even change "we can believe in". But in what are we believing? How many times in history have millions of people believed blindly in something that turned out to be completely worthless and absurd? Communism comes to mind - or Aristotelian mechanics. If you're going to support a candidate, at least find a rational reason for doing so. And be prepared to find that your current reasons for supporting a certain candidate are flawed.

Uhh...what he said.

Hey Jake...who are you rooting for? Granted, all politicians have their positives and negatives, but who tips the scale?

I can't compete with the college lecture material that was Jake's comment, and I won't try to. But yes, we watched it in government. We laughed about the ridiculousness of politics. What would be really ironic is if one of them picked the other for his or her running mate, which I have been predicting to happen for awhile...

I don't really like any of the candidates, although I may end up supporting Romney. I would rather Hillary win the Democratic nomination - I think she has the most experience of the Democratic candidates.

I agree with your summary but I think Hilary has been in politics to long and Obamba I think, dosent know what he's talking about. I think all the democrates are fishy but hey thats just me!