Canada does have five parties, but only two of them can really hope to get in power. The Green Party and NDP are, I believe, way too socialists for Canadians, and the Bloc only has candidates in Québec.

Still, it is nice of you covering it. Harper has often been compared to Bush. I really hope the Conservatives do not get a majority.

Yes, I am somewhat aware of the political dynamics in Canadian parliament. But, it's just very refreshing for me to see a nation which has a place for many voices at the table of politics. In the usa, small upstart parties are explicitly excluded by our mainstream media.

Yes, I definitely see how Stephen Harper's conservatives would tend to take Canada down the same road that we have walked in the usa. Even though he can talk in nice euphemisms and platitudes - he has a set of ideologies very similar to the republicans south of the border about things like punitive punishment, getting in bed with industries, and generally a simplistic set of models about how the world works which will lead nowhere but down the road of folly. However, even if Harper returns to being prime minister, I think the danger for Canada is a long way off. Harper reminds me of a mild mannered usa republican in the early 1990s (and they're starting without the kind of populist bump that Ronald Reagan gave the republicans south of the border in the 1980s).

Looking at this fiery debate last night, it appears to me as if there may have indeed been the gridlock in the government, which Harper said was the reason for the elections. Harper is simply out of step with the consensus in parliament, and the consensus in Canada, it seems to me it's not going to get any better with another minority conservative government. I hope that the Liberals can win this time around. Stéphane Dion is doing a great job in interviews of contrasting his policies both with Layton's and also with Harper's. He's doing very well. His only weakness seems to be his english skills.

I am so refreshed to see the four politicians who will stand up to "conservatives" so vigorously when they realize that the future of their nation is at stake. You rarely see that kind of principled stand in the usa coming from our democrats.

Another fascinating thing seems to be that there is a big disconnect between how francophones view things, as compared to how anglophones see things. The fact that the leaders focused so much on the carbon tax during this french language debate, where the economics surrounding it have not been explained clearly at all in the anglophone Canadian media, makes me think that of course Quebec would be very in tune with the French and european attitudes towards this topic.

It'll be fascinating to watch the English language debate tonight. I imagine that Elizabeth May and Jack Layton will dominate the conversation. It's good to have May in there, because it really gives more advantage to the liberal perspective at the table.

What you folks really need, in my opinion, are a couple of more conservative parties to split the conservative vote. I was thinking that there could be a very intellectual party made up of sophists and philosophers. There was a political movement here in the states which attracted some of those types a decade or so ago - it was built on the idea of "natural law" proposed by such philosophers like John Locke. That party had many problems though, and it eventually faded away after the year 2000. If one could change what it means to be "conservative" - then you'd have at least two good choices at every election.