The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

please have the flag sewn to your lapel tomorrow...it would not hurt anyone;would stop some of the talking. Con los mejores deseos en las elecciones manana!!!!!!!

You go Hillary, go girl and let Obama get elected as President.

For God's sake, people, this is the presidency of the UNITED STATES we're talking about!
We need to forget the insane PC and White Guilt for a moment and investigate this man. Google "Freedom's Enemies, Barack Hussein Obama", by Beckwith. Learn the truth. All the facts on his life with links to back it all up.

We need to get the word out and expose this man.
Google "Freedom's enemies, Barack Hussein Obama", by Beckwith for the true, amazing facts of this man's life- with links to back it all up.
(mostly from his own books)

Let's not forget the last guy who was naive about world events, likeable, was going to change Washington and was going to unite us. He turned out to be a disaster. One can look at this blog and see that the uniter part is a dream.

I know I'll probably get called racist, but,honestly, that's the furthest from the truth: The church web site offends me and bothers me greatly. If I didn't believe in the agenda of my church, I wouldn't be a member of it. I equally offended by Oprah's remarks about fire hoses and dogs. I had nothing to do with that and I don't beleive it is appropriate in a Presidential campaign. Just my thoughts, this disturbs me greatly.

Obama is on fire...after winning in Iowa, who knows what good things lie for him and the Democratic Party. If keeps this up, he could spell W-H-I-T-E H-O-U-S-E the White House in Washington, DC baby

I really wanted to be for Hilary and thought long and hard about it. My final conclusion is that Hilary may be electable, but the country would not change from the bitter divided partisan politics we have now. The Republican base is rabid with their hatred for the Clintons and somehow I can't see how she would be able to get any Republican to work with her in any compromise that she puts forward. They will simply play to their base and continue the misery we had during the Clinton years and the last 7 years with our current idiot in the White House.

I agree with the posts that are looking for something that appeals to the better side of our people, not the bigoted, fear-mongering, divisive rhetoric of the past 7 years.

I belive that Mr. Obama is an agent of change. As for his credentials, he is an intelligent capable man, with an ability to energize us. My only fear is that, given the hysterical racisim of some people, he might not live to get into office.

I'm glad Obama has momentum. If he wins NH, I have all the confidence in the world that he'll be the democratic nominee in Denver and, by extension, the next president of the United States.
Hilary, to her credit, is experienced and certainly intelligent, but so is virtually ever other president we've elected. What is appealing about Obama is that he is fresh and new. He's hardly even an established politician. Clinton, in contrast, is Washington. The point of Obama's campaign is that he will be necessarily different (because he hasn't been entrenched in the Washington political scene) and therefore a more effective "agent of change." It's not that Obama isn't smart or experienced, he's just posses these characteristics in a refreshing way, a way that could "shake up" Washington and ignite change.
I want to try something new; I want to resist the status quo, and that's why Obama has my vote.
As a side note, Hilary Clinton is about as polarizing of a candidate as any, and I don't want are next leader to enter office with a deeply divided nation in tow (like when George W. Bush won).

Don't be fooled by Romney. He wants to buy Americans, not earn their respect. Romney will say anything to get elected and change his mind over and over again. Romney can't balance a budget. Just look at how much he lost in Iowa of his own base's hard earned money flushed down the toliet. He got hammered in Iowa after millions and milions of dollars of negative TV ads.

On the other hand, Huckabee's likeability, his honesty, his optimism, his humbleness, his trustworthiness are all character traits that define him.

American voters are thrilled to have a presidential candidate who not only has experience on running a government, but also someone who has integrity and charm.

That's why Huckabee is skyrocking in the polls and now taking over # 1 position in the nation. Everybody can feel the energy when Huckabee talks, they feel at ease when he speaks with them.

Huckabee is like no other candidate in the last 100 years. His charm, his down to earth speak, his witty style makes people feel good about themselves in side. Someone they want to hang around with and chat wtih.

Huckabee is going to revolutionize America with his optimism for all not just a selected group. Huckabee appeals to all types of groups. He is going to lead this nation up to higher ground creating a new America spirit to be born.

This is a great time to be an American!

WELL' IT LOOK LIKE BILL BRADLEY HUNG
AROUND THE BRO'' SO LONG THAT HE HAS
CHANGE COLOR' JUAT LIKE JOHN EDWARDS
IT IS GETING PRETTY BAD' WHEN SOME-ONE THAT IS A FULL BLONE MUSILUM, THAT
WILL NOT WARE THE AMERICAN UNIFORM OR
FIGHT FOR IT' NOW HE HAS GOT THE#700.00 HAIR-CUY MAN AND ANOTHER ONE THAT AMERICA MADE RICH' TO PLAY BALL, DO YOU KNOW ANY ONE OF THEM
THAT WOULD HIT A LICK AT A SNAKE'

Magliz,
I think you fail to see the point about Obama. Although he is a true Christian, it is not his race or religion that is driving his popularity, just like its not Romney's Mormonism that is worrying folks: Romney, as the editorials in NH have pointed out, appears to be less than genuine. The same thing applies to Hillary. People don't dislike her because she is a woman, but are dissed off because of her personality. If Jackie Kennedy had opted for a public life - say a few years in congress and then a shot at the Presidency - she would not be facing the opposition Hillary is.

Even in the case of Huckabee, the media is overplaying the support of evangalists. He seems to be a genuine person.

We all want the candidate we can hang out with. After the W fiasco, no one wants to admit to it anymore. But in all fairness, we want that person to hang out AND be able to make intelligent and honest decisions at the country level.

Is anyone seeing what I see? You guys whant a Muslim to occupied the white house.
Obama hussein and Hilary are not the only
options there, we can do a lot better than that. We can find someone that is not control by all the big corporations thanks
to all the donations to their campaign. also lets forget about what party we belong to and let's make the right choice for our country at least.

wow...wow...this thread is both heartwarming and terribly discouraging. The racism here and the vitriole toward Clinton are both disgraceful. I am a 52 year old female who applauds the youth movement in this election. It is about time and whoever can bring the under 30 voters out on election day as Democrats should be applauded. But at the same time we have to stop destroying each other before the general election. We have three qualified, exciting and electable candidates...and I for one will support whoever is nominated regardless of my personal preference. The enemy is not Obama, Clinton or Edwards. The enemy sits in the White House and destorys our constitution day by day, leads us into tyranny and fascism day by day, tortures, denies citizens and non citizens alike basic rights that America has always stood for, wiretaps its own people, and acts like a monarchy instead of a democracy. And they have placed their people in all levels of government, they are entrenched and if the Dems don't win we are in for a cruel cruel surprise...
I may prefer one of the Dems over the others but if the dems don't win, we are in real trouble...
What worries me about this thread is the hatred of one or another candidate, the dismissal of any of them, the need to denigrate the other in order to elevate ourselves. You will say I am out of touch, too optimistic, etc...but I believe we have to come together...as Democrats and support whoever is nominated. Those of you who will vote republican or stay home if your candidate is not the nominee, shame on you. Do you really care about the future of this country or the world? Is your candidate more important than saving this country from people who do not believe in democracy or the constitution?? Come on people....this is the time...now is the hour...democrats MUST win this election and it is going to take everyone of us to do so.
I have campaigned for Bobby Kennedy when I was 13, and for Bill Clinton when I was 35. And at 52 I WILL WORK MY HEART OUT FOR WHOEVER our nominee is, because we are the hope of the world. This is the most serious election in our lifetime...the choice between dem and Rep. is stark...and the difference between the beliefs and policies of the three Dem candidates is slim...this won't be over until after Super Tues., but when it is over we need to support our nominee and win this thing in November. We can't do that if we destroy each other before then.

BecJensen1: Obama might change his mind:

This is true with any president as circumstances change.

More importantly, Obama has shown sound judgement on many issues, and has been right, time and time again. History shows that we can trust his judgement.

Hillary has been wrong. Hillary actually adopts Obama's policies, such as talking to foreign leaders, even after calling him naive and inexperience for that position.

If Obama were to change his position, we can trust that it is founded on intelligence, reasoned advice from the best advisers, and sound judgement that has proven itself time and again.

We don't know what we will get with Obama. We do know with Hillary that she get's it wrong many times. And that is Hillary's problem, we have a better choice.

antispy: she will draw on an experienced group of individuals:

Actually, many of Hillary/Bills advisors have moved to Obama. Powell didn't even give Hillary a nod when she mentioned calling on him.

Obama has already proven he surrounds himself with excellent advisors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04obama-t.html

brigittepj: Obama is a self-licking ice-cream cone. Had to laugh at this one.

Hillary is very pro-war. There was a bill that tied Iraq funding to political progress. It passed in the Senate 80-14. Hillary was the only Democrat to vote NO. Bush vetoed it.

Hillary was the only candidate to vote for Iran. Obama missed the vote, but he has stated, he was there to vote the first day the bill was brought to the floor, but the resolution was removed and people were told it would be weeks before it would be reintroduced. Obama went to NH to campaign. The next day the bill was reintroduced for voting with only a half hour before the vote took place. Obama couldn't get there.

This is a copy of my letter to my friend:

That makes two of us. I will walk water to help him. The audacity of his hope makes my toes curl. Especially having met him in Boston and witnessed his keynote speach. It did not take much convincing for me but I must admit that my hesitation was due to doubting the condition of the heart of White America. Perhaps I am wrong which is one of the many reasons why I think this is so historically valuable to our society. I speak to so many people in my age group (closer to 60 than 50), and they are ecstatic...just simply elated that he won Iowa. They say he doesn't have the older voters but I think they are wrong. My friends and I want to walk with him every step of the way to make sure we give him optimum support.

LC

pctheisinger: partisan republican party is strong:

I don't think it is a strong as it was 8 years ago. The religious groups are changing. The old pillars are falling (Pat Robertson, ...). New groups are growing with a message of their own to stand for something, like working for the community, not just against three issues (abortion, evolution, gays).

Obama espouses that philosophy, Hillary does not. As we have seen, Republican's are willing to vote for Obama. He can be elected.

Obama understands that to make progress, we have to work together. Here's an article about the wisdom of his health care policy that addresses this point:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/80882

buffalophil: lobbyists:

Obama may be willing to work with lobbyists to get things done, they do have power, after all, but he will not be a obligated to them because he does not accept their money:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/

jimscorner: Hillary's tough.

That she is.

Unfortunately, she's been wrong lots of times on important. Most recently, on national tv talking about Pakistan. Earlier in the year she called Obama naieve and inexperienced for being willing to talk to foreign leaders. Now has adopted Obama's policy.

Hillary doesn't get it right, too many times. That, coupled with being quick to anger (as seen in the debate), and too comfortable using the military (even in the White House, she was the backbone for using the military), she may not be a good choice to be Commander in Chief.

jalexson0: You claimed Obama was not vetted because his opponent dropped out. This is true.

It is also true with Hillary In her first Senate campaign, Giulliani dropped out. In her second campaign, her candidate was underfunded. Clintons haven't been vetted in a campaign since 1996. Lots has happened since then that we will relive.

Hillary's supporters reasons for not supporting Obama:

1. Lack of substance (check out his issues on his web site).
2. He speaks well.
3. He gives people hope.
4. He is not a woman
5. Obama has big ears.
6. Obama is black.
7. Too green (more legislative time than Hillary, more legislative success9.)
8. He voted like Hillary.
9. Obama is a phony (first grade name calling)
10. Obama flip-flopped: didn't Hillary vote FOR the war?
11. He supports gun control.
12. Republican's will put up a good fight
13. He represents Democrat values
14. His wife is black
15. His wife moves too much
16. He wants to find Osama
17. We can't make changes if we work together.
18. Looks good
19. Talks about hope
20. No sense of humor (watch him on O'Brian)
21. A snake oil salesman

Nuf said.

brigittepj: Obama is a self-licking ice-cream cone. Had to laugh at this one.

We do have to compare candidates. It's important to get the facts right.

Hillary is very pro-war. There was a bill that tied Iraq funding to political progress. It passed in the House, and in the Senate 80-14. Hillary was the only Democrat to vote NO. Bush vetoed it.

Hillary was the only candidate to vote for Iran. Obama was there to vote the day before but the resolution was removed and people were told it would be weeks before it was on the table. Obama went to NH to campaign. The next day the bill was reintroduced for voting with only a half hour before the vote took place. Obama couldn't get there.

Spring_rain Dream on........
Rahaha Grow up-you are practicing racism
Gre45, etc. Educate Yourselves

I suspect Spring_Rain is actually Karl Rove--trying his best to ensure the dems pick an unelectable nominee. Karl--stuff it!

Hilary keeps touting 35 years of experience--quite the stretch. She has been a senator just like Barack. Hilary is now turning pathetic with her recent attacks against Barack. Why doesn't she campaign on her ideas? Because her pollsters and consultants are leading her along with bad advice. The Clintons have much experience running successful campaigns. But this time around the tactics of the past are not working. The ideas coming from Hilary's hired guns are all wrong for this race. Funny, but campainging on how a nominee would competently run the country has much more appeal than attacking someone from their same party. Go figure.

For all the doubters here is Obama's record of getting things done.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Obama's bills in the U.S. Senate
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d109&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Sen+Obama++Barack))+01763))

As much as many dems would like to see a woman president, they want to see a black president a heck of a lot more. Yes, Obama is articulate, charismatic and bright, but Hillary has a bigger problem than that - liberal white guilt. A vote for Obama is the ticket that dems hope will exorcize the racism that still lurks in their psyche.

JakeD, I don't really understand how your post is a response to my comment, but I'll address my comment and your concerns in turn. I am simply explaining how comparing African Americans to monkeys or apes is historically racist. Slavery in this country and the continuing racism that has followed it began and has persisted because people justified their actions by characterizing blacks as less than human. The rhetoric of the majority can be used to continue to suppress a minority and this is one example of how this can be done.

A minority group coming together to overcome racial obstacles that are still present in this country today is not comparable to using racist language. This country was founded on the concept that the voice and will of the minority needs to be protected against tyranny of the majority. Explicit in this is the idea that members of a minority group are allowed to work together to get their voices heard. Democracy speaks with numbers. Thus, in order for blacks in America to ever come close to parity with whites in America economically, politically, and socially, Democracy almost requires blacks to work together and build a coalition.

You might respond by saying that the racial obstacles are exaggerated, because I've heard this response before. But you should look at the continuing differences in the quality of education, resulting differences in higher education opportunities, employment discrimination, and social prejudice that generally disadvantage blacks and Latinos as compared to whites. Although America has made a lot of progress in its race relations, today I still see so many lawsuits and social science research results that would make you think we are still in the days of Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education and anti-discrimination legislation was never passed. And while the more blatant forms of discrimination are on the decline, discrimination has become subtler and thus even harder to stamp out.

So before you begin to label Obama's church as racists, I ask you to think about how you would mobilize the necessary number of people to get your ideas heard and have actual political representation if you don't first create a supportive community that wants to work together.

In my opinion, Roger Simon at Politico said it best when he summed up the two candidate's post-caucus speeches in Iowa:

"Obama said things like: "We are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come."

Clinton said things like: "I founded in the Senate the Bipartisan Manufacturing Caucus.""

The only stupid (invalid) question is the one not asked. As always, YMMV. For anyone else actually interested in discussing the issues surrounding the 2008 election, there's a new thread: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/07/obama_stumps_from_the_opera_ho.html

JD: No, sorry. You don't address my questions. Why bother? I don't think your questions are valid. Religion shouldn't be addressed at all. Go aweigh (sic).

For the record, I think any candidate who has "Pledge[d] allegiance to ANY RACIAL leadership who espouse and embrace said racial Value System" is an issue. YMMV (although, if David Duke were running for {President, I doubt it would).

Did anyone notice the "Dean Scream", by Hillary, during the debate? There was also the Clinton arrogance; she screamed she has been for change for 35 years, and we are too stupid to see it.

That's why I'm asking the questions, GMoreau -- yes, I am white and institutionally priveledged [sic] -- care to answer my questions now?

"Yo" = "To"

JD: Yeah, well, who said that Barack does? Who said that he embraces everything his church or pastor says or does? Who? You're implying that Barack *is* his church, and that's a logical leap that's not possible. Few people one equal their religion, completely, or believe everything about that religion. My view? You're just looking for something to dislike about the guy. And the "black" thing works for you. You found it. In the educational underpinnings of his pastor. In a church in S. Chicago. Are you white? I'll bet you are. Are you institutionally priveledged? Oh, in ways you have no idea. Was your family redlined by bankers and insurance companies in the 60s to prevent black families from moving into certain areas? I'll bet not. Dude, go away, your not so subtle racism is old, hackneyed, and doesn't belong in any intelligent discourse. There will be lots of people attacking Barack. I guess that means he's finally made it to the big leagues. Now, if he can just get one-trick ad hominem attackers to read his positions and look at the man--not attack him wantonly. Oh, wait, if Bill Clinton went to that church, does that make him a complete believer in all things the church's pastor states? If you go to that church, does that mean the same?

Use some logic and syllogistic reason, for "God's" sake.

Yo answer your questions: Yes. Care to answer my pending questions now?

JD: First admendment rights. You have the right to focus on religion and race. Yes, that's your right. Is this what this election is about? Is this what the referendum on Bush is about??? No. This is about changing the country. A registered "Independent"? Cool. Keep going there, bro. Stay "Independent." Take your religious and racial epithets and innuendo with you. And don't let the Constitution hitcha in the rear on the way out.

Answer this question: Is race and religion something that belongs in political discourse? Specifically, in this election?

Go away, and racial/hate monger somewhere else. This election is not about black and white.

Honestly, you Barack detractors are FAR worse than any of the Republican candidates at this point. They, at least, have grace and professionalism and a sense of honor and dignity. . .

For the record, I think any candidate who has "Pledge[d] allegiance to all BLACK leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System" is an issue. YMMV.

I say, let's not address the issues! Let's address his religion! Let's address his skin color! Let's avoid substance? Let's indulge in name calling! Let's protect our vaunted, broken system and elect people how have been fighting for change for 35 years! (heh, how's that working out for the change thing?) Let's not admit that Barack could be the agent of change (in spite of the fact that he's the one who made this campaign *about* change). Yay! Kill the pig! Slash it's throat.

Enough. Wake up, you republicans in Democrats' clothing. Even Obama's competition on the campaign trail don't stoop *nearly* as low as you. And you call yourselves Democrats! How awful. I can only hope he creates a new party. This one is stinkin'...

Here are the two pending questions to thd850:

1) Is this "treading on thin ice" (see excerpt above)?

2) If a white church put out that kind of doctrine, how long do you think it would take for Sharpton and Jackson to be out front with 10,000 protesters?

The Governor of Maine rides in a Caddilac? Shades of the "KINGFISH" ( AKA Huey Long)!
Is it Two Tone?

Yo Moron-- ME is Maine, the poster told you the current governor of Massachusetts (MA) ride in a Cadillac...an informed voter!

I'm actually registered Independent -- but, yes, "no wonder" I was banned for asking honest questions -- your commitment to the First Amendment and seeking the truth seems a bit out of whack as well.

JakeD: Hmmm, no wonder you've been banned on Obama's web site. You and rainy day seem to be very focused on Obama's skin color. To their credit, no one else is, on this thread. You need to focus on his policies and his leadership. His church? That's none of your @#$@# business, or anyone else's.

I went to the web site and read the pastor's views on this. You've completely taken it out of context. You have not listed this accurately.

But this should be expected, people like you and rainy day are going to work the black thing. If you're even a Dem. Who knows? We know you're obsessed with skin color and religion, so, that prolly makes you a "different" party...

(emphasis added above) http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Is this "treading on thin ice" thd850?

Part of Obama's church doctrine:

Commitment to the BLACK Community

Commitment to the BLACK Family

Adherence to the BLACK Work Ethic

Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the BLACK Community

Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting BLACK Institutions

Pledge allegiance to all BLACK leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

Personal commitment to embracement of the BLACK Value System

If you don't believe me, look it up on Obama's church web site: Trinity United Church of Christ.

Take that doctrine and substited WHITE for BLACK! If a white church put out that kind of doctrine, how long do you think it would take for Sharpton and Jackson to be out front with 10,000 protesters?

Okay, how about these talking points:

* People said that youth would not turn out. Even some of my Obama campaign pals. What happpend? They turned out in droves in IA. Who inspired them? Hillary? Edwards? No.

* People said he had no chance two months ago. He was behind in the polls--20 points in NH. What happened? He's ahead 10, at least. Fluke? People are, what, stupid?

* People revile him as superficial, and has a golden tongue. Do they refer to his policies? Do they know that he has called for troop withdrawals, and is the only viable candidate who was officially against the war from the start? That his healthcare plan is a multi-faceted, well thought-out approach to giving healtcare to all (kids are mandatory)? No one mentions these things.

* People say he's only popular among simple, easily led minds. Bill Bradley has endorsed his candidacy. Is BB insane?? Is he a nitwit? No. He's a strong-minded, former presidential candidate with a LOT of experience.

No one admits these things. It's too easy to hurl attacks. Well, that's the republican party's territory. If sourgrapes dems can't admit his strengths, then they shouldn't be in the party. I've admitted the strengths of Hill and Edwards--none of the detractors he have come close to doing the same for Barack.

Shame on you. Find another party. We don't need you to win this...

User rahaha, I hope your Obama/Chimp comment was made with a lack of knowledge about the historical comparisons of blacks with monkeys as a means to denigrate and ridicule. For future reference, you should know that comparing any black person to any type of ape or monkey is treading on thin ice, regardless of intent.

Take a look at Edwards people. Just because Clinton and Obama have more money that doesn't mean they are our only choices. Don't let the money and the media manipulate who you really look at - Edwards is the way to go.

JD: Hmmm, sounds suspicious. Again, these are staffers, but hey, it's a free country.

nobush: please see previous obligatory ad hominem attacks on Barack by all your brethren. Just save time/energy by copying and pasting their ad hominem attacks. How Hillary is 1,000 times better than Barack is, um, interesting. She was the wife of a president and has been a Senator for a few years. She botched healthcare, remember? No? I do. I was in DC at the time. No one mentions that. That's her experience. What else has she done? She's smart, I'll give her that. But she's also a very divisive person--it's not *just* about experience, we need someone who can bring people together--who also has substance. I keep telling people to read Barack's policies, but no one, NOT A SINGLE PERSON ON THIS THREAD has mentioned that they have. (yeah, I know that's yelling) Why is that? No one addresses the issues. What other party do we know that's like that? What other party favors attacks and invective over substance? Hmmm. Let's see, could it be, the Republican party?? How, exactly, is he a snakeoil salesmen? Just because he "talks purdy"? And the "thing" that qualifies him as president is the "thing" that qualifies Hillary and Edwards--they hold public. They are very very smart. They understand how government works. They would try to bring the country together again. Use logic and reason, and leave the invective back in the 2000 and 2004 election. This is a new day; stop the name calling and use the facts.

Your experience is very interesting, not to mention weird, but it does go a long way to supporting my point-KING OBAMA-i am entitled to be President-DO NOT BROOK CRITICISM OF THE KING.

Is that what America wants? Someone who is SO ARROGANT, SO NAIVE, SO EMPTY OF VISION (VISION WITHOUT EXPERIENCE MEANS NOTHING)

I DON'T THINK SO. As the poster above said, do we really need another President, when the world is the tinderbox that it is, on training wheels? NO WAY. HE'LL NEVER WIN, BECAUSE DEMS LIKE MYSELF, WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM. I SIMPLY WOULD NOT VOTE, BECAUSE I CAN'T VOTE REPUBLICAN FOR PRESIDENT-EVER.

I was banned when someone from his Campaign HQ called me and told me I had to stop asking questions on the web site -- they were the same type of questions I've asked on these threads -- nothing profane or offensive, but just honest questions. If Obama cannot value the First Amendment, then he doesn't deserve my vote.

Obama is a snakeoil salesman,all talk and no substance.Obama would be as big a disaster as W.Some say that this makes America feel better but what it really does is show their stupidity. Obama doesn't have one thing that qualifies him to be president.I'm not a Hillary fan but she is a thousand times better than Obama or any republican.Wake up America we need a leader not another president using traning wheels.

JakeD: How were you banned? That's one of the best web sites on the campaign. That doesn't sound right. But still, he isnt' in charge of every detail in his campaign's machinery. Vote the man, not the web site. That said, people should READ HIS POLICIES, and stop slinging mud.

I could give a tinker's damn about Obama's vaunted "vision" - that's the academic talking, but when you try to pin him down, he can't cough up the specifics, because he doesn't have enough experience to have specifics.

No, I want John Edwards, a fighter for the little people, someone, like Bill Clinton, a great communicator-and I know, because I know Edwards experience' that if he says he will institute a kind of universal health care-THAT HE WILL DO IT, BECAUSE HE'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL AT PERSUADING PEOPLE TO HIS POINT OF VIEW FOR A LIVING, HIS WHOLE LIFE. NOTHING BREEDS SUCCESS LIKE SUCCESS, AND EDWARDS IS PROOF, BECAUSE OF HIS EXPERIENCE, NOT IN SPITE OF IT.

I am registered Independent, and I was considering voting for Obama, until I was banned at his web site.

If the Dems send us this weakling I vote other, personality is not enough ever was and weak people bring with them Puppeteers like Bush and the Neo Cons. In fact I am good with Bloomberg so hope that happens if the party activist win on both sides but you have to wonder how can people fall for this tripe again Uniter not a Divider was not that long ago.

Spring_Rain, go away, come again some other (welll, no, don't come again). It's clear you're a racist--not a single person I know (and I KNOW A LOT) of Barack supporters are voting for him because he's black. In fact, no one in the campaign has even mentioned this. Your attacks reveal more about you than about him (or those who support him). But perhaps you're scared; unlike two months ago, when he was 20 points behind in NH, not 10 points ahead. Okay, I broke my own recommendation against responding to you and your not-very-well-veiled racism.

I was for Barack before he won Iowa. I was for him one year ago, when everyone said he couldn't possibly win. Back before it was cool. In fact, a LOT of his supporters were. Why? Because we need a leader with vision. Someone to bridge the divide in this broken country--not more of the same. Hillary said joked the other night that "enlightened" Republicans can join her campaign. Of course, there are no such restrictions placed on Barack's campaign. Everyone's welcome. Except, perhaps, er, rainy day types...

TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGN Developing

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhn.htm

rahaha ,

WE got the point ... racists are supporting Hillary .. go for it Hillary

Exactly Brigit-I've said this many times: With Obama, THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IS ALL ABOUT ME, MY SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT-I'M ENTITLED TO BE PRESIDENT, YOU KNOW IT, THAT'S NOT EVEN AN ISSUE, AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT.

Actually, he'd be a worse President that GW Bush, no question in my mind-a disaster waiting to happen.

brigittepj: Wow, you sound angry. You cast nasty aspersions on his character. How sad. Only those who don't have a real substance behind their claims use nasty ad hominem attacks. Hillary's record on Iraq has been conservative. As a former Goldwater supporter growing up, she, like Bill, is a moderate. I don't think she's in this for herself. I don't think any Dems are--least of all Barack. Who is, as I've stated (and who, it's clear if you watch his vids/behavior) is a humble man. "Stuffed shirt"? In it for himself? How so? Again, ad aspersions without the substance. A vote is a vote. The Republican Guard issue is a non-issue--the vote on Iraq was the key issue, and to say that he'd have voted for the war is bunk. He declared against it from day one. All the Barack haters? Head over to McCain's house and drink the Koolaid there. He has not attacked anyone in this campaign, yet all the sour grapes crowd are attacking him with everything *but* the facts. Stop the name calling. Try to see the good in people. Hillary has done some great things, as has her husband (one of my fave historical figures). I don't hate her. John Edwards is saying wonderful things and is a good man. But if you folks are interested in hateful name calling, go to a different "party." People like this are NOT what the Democratic party is about--and it's not what Barack is about. (No wonder you don't like him...)

Hey folks, THIS IS NOT YOUR PARENTS OR GRANDPARENTS WORLD-WE ARE NOT IN THE 60'S-IN CASE YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, THERE'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT WORLD OUT THERE OF POLITICS, OF TERRORISM, OF AN OUT OF CONTROL DEBT. I DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT JFK-AND YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, JFK WAS BORN INTO POLITICS, IT WAS HIS BLOOD, HE KNEW AL ABOUT IT FROM DAY ONE. THAT AIN'T OBAMA.

Obama, always too carefully in control of his true feelings, is as empty and naive about the world as one could possibly be. I mean the man said not long ago, "the President of Canada"? Huh? And he sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and has never been to Europe?

Oh nononoon. He's really, a more sinister George W. Bush in the making. I repeat, Americans should not be fooled by slick talk-and the idea that it would be "hip and cool" to vote for a black President. That shows to me, a kind of inverse racism-I'll vote for him BECAUSE of the cachet of his being black-look how cool I am, I'm an Obama supporter! No matter that he is too vague for words, has no real-world experience in politics (he's been a law professor for most of his career-sheesh-gimme a break!)won't reveal his true feelings, harbours an angry black man persona, can't laugh at himself-HE'S COOL!

No, the American public deserves someone far more competent, experienced and less "personal issue ridden" than that-the world is a tinderbox right now-we need a President with as much real-world experience in politics as possible.

Obama is a self-licking ice-cream cone. Does anyone really believe he's in this to serve our country? No, his camapaign is about him. This guy says he was against the war. But, based on his voting record in the Senate, it's pretty clear that he would have voted for the war if he'd been a member at the time. It's easy to look over the fence and point fingers. Secondly, the vote he criticized Clinton for on declaring the Iranian Republican Guard a sponsor of terrorism (which, they are, by the way). He said that it was the first step to allowing Bush to attack Iran. Really? Well, if he felt that strongly about it, why didn't he go back to Washington and vote against it? Why, because he's a big old fake. Just another stuffed suit with a golden tongue. I'm not drinking his kool-aid. He will cause the Democrats to lose the election.

To JATECT2: Just go to his web site, barackobama.com--read his policies. Review the substance behind his claims. This is good stuff--not fluff. I find it ironic that people think that those who have spent their lives esconced in the "system" can change the system. People say she's been working for change for 35 years. How has that worked out for us? The healthcare debacle she was in charge of? No one mentions that. Same with McCain, who, after the push poll in S. Carolina by Karl Rove about him having an illegitimate black child went on to embrace Bush and supporting him. Shame on J. McCain--and moderate Dems would do well to remember that he continues to support the President on Iraq, just like his "good friend" Joe Lieberman. These people need to be held accountable for where we are in the world, and we need someone with the vision to get us back on track. Hillary? McCain? Those pro-Iraq politicians aren't it. (Why is no one discussing Iraq? She continues to run away from her record on it and refuses to admit that the vote was a mistake. We need humility and the ability to admit these things--Barack has it, no one else running does). This isn't "feel-good" it's based on current history and facts.

I strongly recommend ignoring Spring Rain--this one's just spouting inanity that has no basis in reality. There are no references, or citations, or examples--just ad hominem attacks. In fact, I don't think SR is a Democrat; prolly a lurker in Dems clothing. If he is, um, he should seriously consider joining the other side--where annoying things like details and specifics and examples are not addressed either.

I like Barack Obama a lot. But I'm concerned some people are basing their choice on infatuation and "likeability" rather than common sense. Senator Clinton is the most qualified candidate of either party. The fact that her husband is a former president is a HUGE plus! These are extremely dangerous times. When push comes to shove, the country will choose experience and the right kind of change. I'm a life-long democrat. If it's Obama vs. McCain, I'd have to go with McCain.

Birddog08: Nothing you stated mentioned the substance of what Barack is about or how he is inspiring people. A leader isn't just about "grit" and insider capability--a leader must also *inspire* the nation with vision and a sense that things can get better. Oh, and btw, why doesn't anyone on this post admit that the entire "Change" theme was Obama's, that it has resonated with the electorate, and that everyone--on both sides of the aisle--have "borrowed" it for their campaigns. Democrats finally have it right--and btw, history will also be made when this man of color (truly a representative of this melting pot country) gets elected in November. I lived in DC and worked on Capitol Hill for 25 years. I've worked with MCs, and Senators and White House execs. The *only* person I've ever canvassed for or given money to? Barack Obama--based solely on his leadership, vision, common sense, and ability to heal a nation sorely in need of a help.

Spring_Rain writes:

I maintain, as a Democrat, that Barack Obama would be a DISASTER as President, too green, too vague TOO ARROGANT, TOO TIGHTLY WOUND, TOO MANY PERSONAL "ISSUES", TOO MUCH A SENSE THAT HE'S "ENTITLED", TOO UNSKILLED AT BUILDING COALITIONS,-HE'S ALL ACADEMIC AND THEORETICAL, NO PRACTICAL, REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE

If Obama is the Democratic candidate, then Dems will lose the Presidential election.

---------------------

What a crock! JFK and Lincoln had little to no experience when they became president either. All the experience in the world didn't keep Hillary and God love him, John Edwards from voting for the Iraqi oil heist. It's about having good judgement. People like former National Secuirity Advisor Zibignew Brzezinski, former counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke and retired Air Force General Tony McPeak wouldn't have endorsed him if they didn't think he was ready. Your other remaining, valid argument not predicated on some weird sort of temper tantrum -- that he can't build a coalition is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard and flies in the face of the reality we witnessed in Iowa. If Obama couldn't build a coalition, then why did he decimate the other dems amongst independents as well as bring over crossover Republican votes in Iowa? His coalition bloody well doubled the Democratic turnout from '04!
Do you have a problem with people of color? Otherwise, YOU MAKE NO SENSE!

I hope Obama trounces Hillary in New Hampshire and again on February 5th. He is a welcome breath of fresh air. She needs to get out of politics and do something else, such as run the Red Cross.
As a veteran, I hope John McCain gets the Republican nomination. He has earned it.

Would the Hillary supporters care to post a list that details the experience she has that qualifies her to be president?

And, Spring Rain, your comments are embarrassing. Have you no self-respect?

to "Spring_Rain"--go to someone's else's parade. Barack is *tired* after Iowa--the guy as a great sense of humor, and frankly, is one of the only self-deprecating guys out there. When, a year ago, he showed up to a roomful of reporters in New Hampshire (way more than citizens), he responded dryly--"Must be a slow news day." On Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me, the popular/funny NPR news quiz, Barack *killed*--people thought he was a scream. But it's clear that you're a racist: "ANGRY BROODING BLACK MAN"? First, stop yelling--ALL CAPS=yelling. Second, read and look at the record: Obama left the possibility of going into well-paid corporate world for community organing in decidedly low-paid South Chicago. If you're typical of most Edwards supports (and God help him if that's so), then Barack is a shoe-in. Actually, you're probably more typical of Edwards, what with his angry, I'll fight and kick and scream personal reinvention. I like him, but the only person who *isn't* reinventing himself is Barack. Oh, and one more thing: Isn't it interesting how *everyone* has stolen the "change" theme, hmm? Who came up with that one first? I'm just wondering, could it be, oh, I don't know...BARACK OBAMA?

'As New Hampshire goes so goes the Nation'? So much for the Democrats chance of a clean sweep in November....Obama doesn't have a chance against McCain; In this time of great uncertainty and national peril all McCain has to do is wave his military and Congressional accomplishments against Obama's (Nil) and the presidency is his. If he ran against Hillary at least SHE has significant accomplishments to compare to his (And possess just as much grit as McCAin does). Also many, many citizens would vote for her simply to see history being made in their life-time and to see Bill back in business....Sad, once again the Demo's slice themselves up before they even begin to face their main opponent....

You can call them "ad hominem" attacks if you want, I prefer to look at cold reality, and I don't give a damn about Obama's "thoughtful postings" that just makes my points even clearer- he's never had to be in a courtroom, persuading a jury of 12 of the rightness of his cause, never had to build coalitions to push his platform through-HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE IN THAT AREA WHATSOEVER-IT'S ALL ACADEMIC.

But the most worrying aspect to me is the great unknown in Obama's tightly wound and crafted personality-that cool exterior is hiding the explosive angry black man at the core-and that will never do. You can't be that way and be President. I can see it now: KING OBAMA-DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO, AND DON'T YOU DARE CRITICIZE ME, OR I WILL BRING THE WRATH OF GOD DOWN ON YOU.

Really, haven't we had enough of that sort of thing? But Obama would make GW Bush look like a pussycat in that regard. At least GW Bush can laugh at himself-THAT QUALITY, THE ABILITY TO LAUGH AT YOURSELF, AS PRESIDENT, CANNOT BE UNDERESTIMATED. I'm telling you, Obama is a disaster waiting to happen.

To the poster who stated "Let us hope that Obama-Drama finds some substance for his vision." I would only suggest that you go to www.barackobama.com and *read* the details of his policies. They are substantive, thoughtful, detailed, and well articulated--unlike the ad hominem postings of certain folks here...

P.S. OBAMA can't laugh at himself, can't joke about himself, he has no sense of humour WHATSOEVER-IF YOU CAN'T LAUGH AT YOURSELF, NOT HAVE A SENSE OF HUMOUR, YOU DON'T BELONG ANYWHERE NEAR THE PRESIDENCY.

"John Edwards is using populist theme for convenience in this election and is a big hypocrite.
Remember that John Edwards was a Trial Lawyer, worked for a Hedge Fund Company and has 28000 sq ft mansion and $1200 hair cuts.
"

John Edwards is ANYTHING BUT A HYPOCRITE. THAT label needs to be affixed to Obama. I would vote for John Edwards precisely BECAUSE he is a trial lawyer, and a successful one, representing people who have been injured or have died, a lawyer who has to fight it out in the trenches, and make compromises every time he goes into the courtroom. THAT kind of experience is invaluable, and OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE IT-HE WENT TO THE MOST ELITIST INSTITUTIONS IN THIS COUNTRY-COLUMBIA/HARVARD, AND THEN BECAME A LAW PROFESSOR-TALK ABOUT LIVING IN A RAREFIED ELITIST WORLD! YOU COULDN'T GET MORE ACADEMIC THAN A LAW PROFESSOR, AND WE ALL KNOW, THEY SOUND GOOD, BUT FALL WAY SHORT ON PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE!

Obama doesn't have a CLUE what the forgotten majority in this country-the poor, the struggling middle class- are going through. Edwards, on the other hand, is the son of a mill worker, and his platform IS to help this forgotten majority.

Quite personally, I wouldn't vote for someone like Obama as dogcatcher. TOO MANY PERSONAL "ISSUES" All I see is that tightly wound, carefully crafted exterior-god knows what will happen to that personality when it's truly under fire from all sides-it would NOT be pretty, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OBAMA IS ALL ABOUT-AND THAT SHOULD BE SCARY TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

With Edwards and Hilary, what you see is what you get, they both have very open, direct personalities, both of them very skilled at building coalitions to further their platforms. As far as Obama, having some "grand vision" is great, but you have to have the necessary political and real-world skills to build a coalition to make your vision a reality, and he clearly comes up way lacking there.

I want NO ANGRY BROODING BLACK MAN AS PRESIDENT-A DISASTER, I'M TELLING YOU.

Obama is my pick for our new President even though I am a Republican for over 40 years..The Republicans,they are out of touch with America..THE VA and THE IRS are out of control and lawless under this government.The IRS is totally destroying honest Americans. And The VA, destroying it's Vets like me..a Nam medal winner, as Washington goes bankrupt and cuts their funds..

People, what is wrong with us? We are willing to turn over the most important job in our troubled nation to someone that looks good and talks like a Baptist preacher. Or wait, it is a Baptist preacher, one black, one white. Haven't we had enough of this type of leadership? George Bush was that type of leader. He went into office not knowing a damn thing about just about everything and looks at what he left us. It is not the experience of Washington insiders that has ruined our country it is the lack of it by outsiders like the Bushes. We need people with experience. People like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson. They may not look like rock stars, be black or women, but they know how to lead. Being first lady does not qualify you as experienced at being the leader of the country. Would you consider Nancy Regan or Laura Bush? And another thing, it is simply not acceptable that one state chooses whom I can vote for in a primary election, it is no wonder all states are trying to move their primaries closer to the actual election date. I resent not being able to vote for one of the qualified candidates because I live in Arizona. What's going on people?

When Senator Obama speaks about CHANGE...I understand very well that he is addressing the divisive, hateful politics that has divided our nation, beginning in the 1990's.
Our congress is virtually non-functional because of this near 50/50 divide. Our current president doesn't consult congress and only speaks to those who agree with him.
I see neighbors, co-workers, even family members who are no longer speaking to each other because of the hateful divisiveness that has taken over our country. (Just take a look at the venom in some of these posts.)
The Clintons should know very well what Obama is speaking about because they were once on the receiving end of this hateful rhetoric.
I admire Obama for staying on the high-road. That takes fortitude! In my opinion he is exactly what this country needs. It's a dangerous world out there, and "a nation divided against itself cannot stand."

Breaking:

RASMUSSEN: Clinton's lead in national polling collapse... now Clinton 33 Obama 29; Before Iowa showed Clinton 41 Obama 24.

======

The Clinton machine is falling apart before our very eyes.

This is just further evidence that Clinton is no more than Bush-Lite. Anyone know what rock Karl Rove is hiding under. I bet it's somewhere near the Clinton Campaign Team.

To Spring Rain: Your description of Obama as arrogant, too tightly wound, seemingly entitled, etc. is better affixed to George Bush, but only if you add incompetent. The Iowa caucus should have taught you that nobody can predict the outcome of an election ten months in advance.

"OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

For those of you who still have not heard:

There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O."
You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama.
The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

Together for Obama,
Anne

History has already been made. Illinois Senator Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson placed fourth. But did they really earn their finishing positions? The answer may be surprising. In the now past ABC New Hampshire debate before the January 8th first-in-the-nation primary, the rules were that only the candidates who finish in the top four slots in Iowa could participate, meaning that second-tier candidates who placed fourth could live on to continue their campaign another day. In the last hours before the Iowa caucuses Obama, who wanted to pad his victory and hedge his bets, approached Joe Biden with this proposal:
In precincts where Biden had a local official loyal to him, and if Biden wasn't viable, then Senator Biden would tell his organizers to move his supporters over to Obama en mass. Conversely, in precincts where Obama had more than enough supporters, he would lend people to Biden to ensure Biden a fourth place finish so that he could continue on.
Joe Biden actually considered the proposal. An anonymous source close to Biden told the Washington Post that the strategy could be "viability for victory."When the media found out, Obama's camp admitted that the conversation took place. Biden, who when asked about the proposal at a campaign event said that the deal could "probably" help both campaigns; however he later rejected the deal on "moral grounds," a source in Biden's Iowa organization told the Rev. Rob Times on condition of anonymity. History recorded that Joe Biden placed fifth in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race.
On January 4, the day after the caucus, the New York Times reported strong rumors that Obama made the same deal to Bill Richardson that he previously offered to Biden, only this time the deal was accepted.The Times article describes not only the rumors, but gives an eye-witness account and confession of an Obama official telling Richardson supporters that a pact had indeed been made between the two candidates. "That's what the leadership has said," admitted Deb Copeland, an Obama volunteer as reported by the New York Times. "What we're concerned about is we heard of a few people going to Hillary. And we want to keep you together," she told the Richardson supporters at the 64th precinct. Volunteers for the Biden campaign told the Rev. Rob Times that Obama organizers used the same speech about a "pact" to lure supporters in at least two precincts where Biden was only a few supporters shy of viability

Representatives from both the Obama and Richardson campaigns deny that such a deal was ever struck, yet first hand testimonies clearly paint a far different picture. The Effect in the end, the effect of backdoor wheeling and dealing between campaigns is that Richardson's fourth place finish could be artificial, and Obama's victory margin is larger than it would have been in a democratic system. Our democracy is based, in part, on the concept of "one man, one vote," and a vote by a secret ballot, free from the judging eyes of neighbors and the media, free from bribery, and free from the influence of political activists. Had the Iowa contest been based on a ballot, and had caucus voters cast a single vote for the candidate of their choice as is the most fair method of picking a president, then Obama may have come in second and Richardson in fifth. If Obama's victory margin had been smaller, or if he placed second, then the dynamic of the race would have changed drastically. Edwards, Clinton, and even Biden may have all come out of Iowa in stronger positions than any of them have.In part, the system is to blame, but those who took advantage of it and exploited it for their own purposes, namely Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, are not without culpability and their misdeeds should be remembered in the minds of voters.

HRC resorted to using racist "code language" in saying "Obama is not electable" without a fuller explanation. Iowa thought otherwise, as New Hampshire is thinking very differently as well. No, it is HRC who is not electable. Not because of race, gender, or any of that stuff. HRC is unelectable because she is mean, nasty, petty and arrogant. Her sense of self-importance and entitlement turns people off. Her hypocrisy stinks (a director of Wal-Mart, the anti-union shop of all anti-union shops). HRC's manipulative mechanations would make Machiavelli blush with shame. My twelve year old son told me this morning that "Senator Clinton is trying to make people think she's good, but she's not!" What a perceptive young man (does me proud)!

So America, we can change the climate in Washington and send a seismic shockwave to the political establishment. VOTE! BARACK! HUSSEIN!! OBAMA!!!

This mud-slinging by HRC and her supporters has only energized me to write a check to Obama, as well as turn out to vote for him in the primary. My one vote won't make much difference in the outcome, but it will make me feel good to cancel out on of the HRC mouth-breathers.

for all of the people talking of experience...
what makes you think that when a president is elected, he doesn't surround himself with the more brilliant and experience people/advisors/staff? no president really makes decisions in a solitary manner...
why do you think this?

i have no doubt he will surround himself with brilliance much like his own and he will have the best of the best because people are going to want to serve under him because it's time to bring America back to the front of the minds of all the world leaders as a super-power and not the bully's that bush-cheney have created.

IMPEACH BUSH-CHENEY TODAY!!!

he's got my support. This is the first time in my 52 years that I want to help someone win the presidency. I have voted plenty but these last two elections have made me angry enough to see that more has to be done to make this happen. the bush-cheney org. has damaged this country's fine reputation and has stained our history with their blantant violation of constitutional laws and lying to the American public. People who voted for these people should be ashamed that they believe their lies and some still do believe their lies and for what it's worth?
bush-cheney could care less about them civilians and they are foolish to believe that they would care about them. cheney's off shore bank accounts will be his focus that last day of service as will bush's. infact they will be aligned for the evermore secretive carlyle corp. and join its board of directors which has moved their offices to dubai where their arab friends live...
so my push is to get obama elected and the momentum is going ...
the people will actually be heard by their president...unlike bush-cheney mess.
they didn't listen
they didn't care
and they never, ever will...

To everyone who says that "experience is important" and that Obama is not experienced, I have two questions. First, what is Hilary's record? She seems to be running on her husband's acheivements, not her own. Second, why don't you go to the Illinois legislative archives? There, you would find that, among other acheivements, (a) Obama mustered a bipartisan political reform bill through the Illinois state legislature; and (b) he also is responsible for passing legislation in the face of significant opposition that requires that interrogations by Chicago police are now videotaped to prevent torture. These are only two of his legislative accomplishments, but both of them were made by assembling bipartisan support and gaining political traction to make their passage possible despite the governor's hostility.

What has Hilary done, besides act as First Lady? When she starts listing her own accomplishments, then I'll start believing her experience pitch more.

For those who denigrate Obama's experience and consider Billary's useful (lying, fraudulentbanking, cheating, scamming, eliciting jerry-rigged poll outcomes, etc.) here is an article from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

"JUDGE HIM BY HIS LAWS".

What a wonderful day in our history, when Barack Obama can bring true leadership and honesty as well as practical idealism to our nation's helm!

RESIDUAL RACISM IN AMERICA?

We are so used to seeing racial diversity in the media -- news, weather, sports TV -- that when we don't see it, we are startled.

We look at the GOP candidates Saturday night -- six white guys -- and we say, Geeze, what is this, a meeting of South Carolina plantation owners in 1858?

The Democratic candidates Saturday night were a white guy, a woman, a black guy and an Hispanic. People nod and think, That's America, so what.

In brief, I think we have passed an invisible milestone of tolerance. The vast majority no longer judge an individual by his racial or ethnic group. We no longer look at someone like Gen. Colin Powell and think, Black guy.

I think the residual racism in this country is over-rated. Certainly, there will be pockets of resistence, as, the Deep South. That may be the last bastion of the Republican Party.

Much ado about nothing... Hillery is nothing but ado have experience, ado have wisdom, ado a record, ado have a health plan, ado have slick willie and ado ado ado. Pole climbers create splinters as they work up the pole. The same works for politicians. Only difference is when the pole gets greased politicians slide down the slippery critter and get a you know what full of splinters. These tend to inject rather sharp pains and politicians tend to squeal louder the further they slide down the polls. I have heard the squealing Hillery all weekend. How much longer can she squeal? Hopefully, all the way home to New York.

Boy, Hillary's shrinking minions are really great in this thread. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, buffalo them with b.s. Seriously, comparisons to a chimp that's really serious discussion.

Clinton's finally getting her comeuppance for her arrogance, flipfloping, misrepresentations, past and the whole sorry set of baggage. John Edwards was right yesterday calling her campaignin without conscience.

America's waking up. Hillary says she's been "making change" for 35 years. The "Miami Herald's" Dave Barry is right. That sounds like a toll booth collector. She's not out nor is this over, but the "coronation's" on hold and none too soon.

Folks, we are heading ino another 8 years of GOP administration again. Karl Rove, the election master's plan is working again. In concert with the Utraleft naive Demcrats to knock out HRC first, this will get Obama nominated. He must have another secret plan to crush Obama in the fall. I have to hand it to Karl Rove, the political genius. I go for the winner, go Republicans!

Just like Bush had Rove ... Obama has it's Axelrod's that's who ... but I guess you guys already knew that ... the Best Fool Knows the Planner Behind the Plan or Should I say Plant of Obama ... `Change Crapola' ... read about David Axelrod ... and how he created the most tightly wrapped Obamadate in history: this guy is an operator as slick as Karl Rove - worked on many campaigns and has always used his message to tell a tale `to elect his guy'. `A Message of Hope' ...` Bridge to the 21st Century' 1996 ... the new Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick ... sound familiar, that's David Axelrod. From Mayor Daley of Chicago, to Harold Washington the late ex-mayor, from Bill Clinton to the late Senator from Illinois Paul Simon ... David Axelrod. It's all about compares to the past, and `the great Tale of the Candidate' ... `The Audacity of Hope' ... read about all the answers, no holds barred: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?_r=1 ... (you will have to register at NYTimes `great piece') ... called Obama's Narrator. Axelrod is even a good friend of the Clinton's, Axelrod is the Guy Who Created Obamalaria and `the fever of change on a dozen insurgent Democrat campaigns' ... even Edwards, all these guys know each other so well - it's almost like they had each other's kids!

With the baggage carried by Mrs. Clinton, she simply cannot be elected. Apparently her handlers had hoped that Bill could save her, but his face only reminded the voters of all the old scandals that would be dragged out again. As to her "35 years experience" -- wasn't that when she worked at the Rose Law Firm and the Whitewater Real Estate Development?

Obama is clearly very talented and will have a prominent future within the Democratic Party. However, because he is young and inexperienced, at this moment he stands as a symbol. It really worries me to think that his nomination as the Democratic candidate will result in another Republican administration. We Democrats need to be smart this time around, and Hillary is clearly the stronger candidate.

In 2000 Al Gore would have changed the things that didn't work in the 90s and would have built on the things that did.

Experience is important. That's all I have to say.

My arguments probably won't change any minds but I wonder how many Americans wish that back in 2000 the country had chosen experience and change over just change.

People like to tell you that Bill Clinton didn't have experience when he ran in 2002, but check the facts and look at this resume.

Clinton ran unopposed for state attorney general in 1976.
In 1978, Clinton was elected governor of Arkansas at the age of 32 Clinton lost his bid for reelection in 1980 to Frank D. White He won back the governorship in 1982, and won again in 1984 and 1986

In 1987 he served as chairman of the National Governors' Association. He also became vice-chairman, and subsequently chairman, of the Democratic Governors' Association.

By 1992 he was the nation's senior governor.

What we are looking for is someone who will change the policies of both the Bush Administration and the Republican dominated Congress that has been running our country for the past 7 years. We started that process in 2006.

When choosing the next Democratic nominee for President it's important that we also keep in mind that the candidate has the experience to know what has worked in the past, what hasn't worked, and how he or she can use that knowledge to make positive changes in the future.

My preferences for president would be Clinton, McCain, Edwards, Romney, and then Obama. I'm not looking for someone who will form "coalitions" of like-minded liberals. His policies are way too idealistic and extreme for any moderates or conservatives to get behind. He is charismatic, but most people in congress & the senate are not sheep like the majority of the american population.

Clinton is the best choice because she is moderate enough to allow both parties to work together through compromise. Additionally she will draw upon an experienced group of individuals (Bill included) who have the international connections and experience necessary to escape the hole America has dug itself into.

And for all the Democrats and Independents who wonder if experience really is all that important when deciding who our next President should be, just keep in mind this quote from a CBS article in February 2003. It was written 3 weeks before President Bush gave the order for our troops to go off standby and actually invade Iraq.

"The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action."

It was the passage of the Iraq Resolution that allowed the buildup of military troops in the region. Go back and read the speeches that were made on the floor of the Senate the day the Resolution was passed and see who knew that it was going to take military pressure in the form of a buildup of troops if we ever wanted Saddam Hussein to comply.

CBS article from February 20, 2003:

Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage'
U.N. Sources Complain About Quality Of U.S. Intelligence On Iraq

Feb. 20, 2003
paragraph 9
"The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

Has anyine read "The Final Days, The Last , Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House" written by Barbara Olson?

It helped me to decide on not backing the Clintons. Some of the tactics being used by Hillary as a comeback tool is deja vou.

Obama, brings Hope to an end of corruption in the White House.

Let's take race out of the equation. I have a question. If Barack OBama were running against Harold Ford, who do you think would be better qualified and have the experience necessary to be the Democratic candidate for President? And while you are thinking about that, keep this in mind; it'a a quote that Barack OBama made in July 2004 about how he would have voted on the Iraq Resolution had he been in the Senate at the time.

""''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'' "

How do we know that once he gets into the White House he won't change his mind on everything he's promising to do when reality hits? Don't be blinded by all the bright lights and rhetoric. We saw how media coverage and patriotic speeches pushed our troops into Iraq in March 2003, despite the fact that the UN Inspectors had found no evidence that Sddam Hussein had WMD. I'd like for someone to show me the evidence that OBama can do more than just make inspirational speeches, that he has the experience to know what has worked in the past, what hasn't worked, and how he can use that knowledge to make positive changes in the future.

July 2004 quote by Barack OBama
"''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'' "

A brief biography of Harold Ford from Answers.com

Career

Coordinator of Harold E. Ford, Sr.'s congressional campaigns in 1992 and 1994; special assistant to the Justice/Civil Rights Cluster on the Clinton Transitional Team, 1992; special assistant at U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, 1993; member of U.S. House of Representatives (Ninth District, Tennessee), 1997-; member of House Committee on Education and the Workforce and House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Life's Work

The election of Harold E. Ford, Jr., to the U.S. House of Representatives in November of 1996 was a noteworthy event for a number of reasons. At age 26, Ford became the youngest member of the present Congress and the second youngest member of Congress in history. He is also the first African American to succeed a parent in office. Ford's father, Harold E. Ford, Sr., represented Tennessee's ninth district for eleven terms before deciding to retire in 1996.

Obama should not be the savior of United States, but his image makes him look like one. And many people actually buy this. Let's face it, Politics Is dirty. I don't believe in idealism, or illusion.

bobnsri,
Well said. Thank you. I also couldn't believe Hillary's despicable rhetoric, "Obama is not electable."

No wonder why she is going down to South.

The last thing America need is another "grand view". The thrilling path to post-partisian utopia will destroy the very strength of democracy: two equally matched Parties checking each other. If Dem and Rep are truly compromised (aka "united"), our politics would be similar to Chinese one-party rule: endless inefficiency, curruption, insider dealings. Accountablity is gone because because everything would be consented by everyone. If Obama is sincere about his "grand view", Americans: BEWARE!

Not sure about Obama. But if he enables us to avoid Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton I'm all for him.

HRC is unelectable. She has an unfavorable rating that consistently hovers around 50 per cent. After 20 plus years of public life everyone knows her and consequently have already made up their mind.Because of this it will be extremely difficult , if not impossible for her to icrease the support that she already has. She more than likely is incapable of exceeding 49 per cent of the vote in a general election. For better or worse, people either love her or hate her.Once again after 20 plus years , people have already made up their mind and will not change it. This fact alone makes her unelectable.

We should learn from the past..many have said we get a government we deserve. Are we going to elect someone who just sounds nice with nothing else to show for it. Or are we going to elect someone we know who can do the job, like Hilary. This is not the time to take chances. We've already done that with W. We have too many problems to trust in the hands of a dreamer, a romantic orator. there are people who are good in talking, and they should be free to speak and be heard. But we dont need to let them govern. Let those who know how to lead and govern do their job, and just let the orators speak on radio or media--no further.

Hillary Clinton. an extremely smart, experienced , and prepared candidate with loyal supporters who will stop at nothing to get her elected. Sounds like the female NIXON to me.

There was Hillary arriving in New Hampshire telling a reporter that she wasn't too concerned about her (staggering) loss in Iowa because she "had never been the front-runner" there.

She actually said that. She said it with a straight face. It wasn't one of her anguished attempts at humor.

Up by 30 points six months ago, she said that. She may as well have lectured us on what the definition of "is", is.

Hillary and her band of consultants and focus groups only think they see the light at the end of the tunnel. They have no idea that's the Obama Presidential Express bearing down on them full tilt boogie.

I love the smell of Clinton panic in the morning. Or any time of the day, frankly.

Looks as if I'm gonna get my fill.

Obama is a fraud. Talks about change and hires the lobbyist that squashed legislation, He says(Obama) "to require elite investment firms to pay their share of taxes"
The lobbyist is Moses Mercado. Worked for Ogilvy Government Relations on behalf of Blackstone Group.
Obama has several lobbyists working for his campaign who have represented some of the nations largest corporations.
One even worked on behalf of the govt. of Qatar.

"NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE STUPIDITY OF THE AMERICAN VOTER!"

I so appreciated this. This is the same electorate that elected george bush once. No wonder they are going toward Obama.

While Obama paints an effusive rose colored cloud - he has no substantive plan or platform. He sounds good and in that respect he is perfect for this electorate.

But Obama is really not an agent of change. He is more of the same. "we should hunt down and kill Osama Bin laden." He is exactly more of the same. He is epitemizes the "If you don't have a plan, sell hope" strategy. Of the leading democratic candidates he is furthest to the right and he isn't change at all. He is exactly more of the same.

I am a Hillary supporter and I'd love to see her lead this country for eight years. Otherwise it's just going to be another man in office and that is change NOT.

Ordinarily, I'd love to see an African-American BE president. But not now. It's time for a woman to be president. I'm not voting for Hillary simply because she's a woman. i don't think I could bring myself to vote for Elizabeth Doyle. But I'd infinitely rather see Bidden in office as opposed to Obama. He would do better as a game show host and his hair is too short!

The Obama bubble,like the dot-com bubble of 2000, and the housing bubble of 2004, will break very soon and much sooner.His political record shows no evidence of bringing about change.Like George Bush earlier,who promised 'change' and 'unity' but did not deliver in the end,he will do neither. Promising unity and change is just a way of manipulating naive voters. During his Senate tenure,Obama has not introduced a single legislation of any significance.
Edwards will get nowhere against corporate interests.
The Republicans are pathetic.
Only Hillary has a record with significant achievements.

I think Obama is very inspirational candidate. I would vote for him if he actually had a resume for the job. He votes present or No Vote on Welfare and Poverty,Education,Women's issues, Civil Liberties and Civil Rights,Reproductive issues, Abortion. He has been pretty inactive on budget spending and taxes. He avoids immigration issues. In all seriousness, I think I am missing something here. Based on all the above issues please tell me why he will make such a great president. He is counting on a Latino vote in Nevada, is this why he avoids all of the immigration issues?

I am not being sarcastic, I would like to be convinced and would appreciate all of your responses.

Just bless him . Obama is our president in January 2009 .Hillary has lost because people are already fed up with BUSH / CLINTON endless DYNASTY . Un top of this, Hillary infuriated folks by running as the INEVITABLE NOMINEE .too arrogant , too pompous .

Pjwright although I agree that taunting or belittling is hardly constructive, I can't buy into your WWOD philosophy. His optimism is uplifting to be sure, but the man is not Gandhi. I respect the man, he his upstanding surely but until he puts nonviolence at the forefront of his agenda I won't follow him unquestioningly. He hasn't really said anything that makes him any more decent or inspiring than many brave individuals I interact with in my everyday life. Politically the last three standing all strike me as largely the same, if we wanted something different we would have given figures such as Paul and Kucinich more of a chance. I mean, call me a simpleton but I really can't understand where they disagree on any major issue. What makes Obama different is he gives us the opportunity to quit considering ourselves "masses" that need to be lead like "leaders" such as a Clinton or Edwards - we can choose our own identity and shape our own destiny. It's an old notion but it's playing out in this election - power to the people! Let's not forget that we are capable of many things on our own, if we choose to actively participate in the institutions that guide our lives and are not content to passively allow our world to develop around us.

That being said Obama's idealism, I hope, will give rise to greater accomplishments and compromises. Electing the guy will not solve the tremendous problems facing our world that myself and all other young people I know obsess about on a daily basis. Eventually we're going to have to take a hard look at our habits and lifestyles and accept that they are not sustainable. However generating solidarity behind common values to work together to solve these problems is the first step and Obama sincerely proposes and embodies at least this much.

Hey, I hate to sound like "What would Obama do" but those of us who support him should follow his example in being respectful and positive in our comments, not taunting or belittling. Read what he's written, listen to him speak...he is a great man and could lead and inspire our nation to be so much better than it is now.

RE: HRC

Unfortunately, sometimes become become like their enemies; HRC sounds more and more like the Republicans who attacked her ... negative, cynical, and petty

No, genadoll. God help YOU.

I would rather lose with Obama than to win with Clinton. The rest of you need to get over it. GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER?

I have no problem with Hillary, Obama, and Edwards splitting the vote well into the primaries. Everyone in the country needs to be heard.

rd

Ah, pctheisinger after further research I see that you're right. So only one term (although it seems he dropped out of politics for a while). So only one term in Congress, an even greater correlation. I appreciate the correction.

What is so tiresome about Hillary is the constant me, I, me, I. Obama soars in like an eagle and it's all about WE. Hillary does'nt get it and never will.

deadondres --

I believe you said "I can think of another president that built his reputation in the Illinois state legislature and never served as a US Congressman before becoming president."

Abraham Lincoln served one term in the House of Representatives. I believe it was at the start of the Mexican-American War and he voted against it.

The genadoll post above is racist crap, but God help us, it's just a tiny sampling of what;s to come throughout 2008 if Obama gets the nomination.

I'd almost say yeah go for Obama just because of those Republican racists but we would lose the presidential election.

At this point I guess I'm disgusted to have to draw such a conclusion. I would like to think the majority are better than that, and I truly hope we are.

rd

About Clinton's "experience," she was a director of Wal-Mart during her husband's governorship of Arkansas. How can unions support a former director of one of the most anti-union companies on the planet, Wal-Mart? How could she have squared whatever principles she has to serving Wal-Mart?

Hillary held her own in the debate and proved that she is a fighter and will not be bullied. The White House is no place for sissies or pretty boys. The President needs to be a fighter, I'll put Hillary up against any world leader or threat that arises and know that she will not back down!

Looking at these comments, I fear I am in the minority, but I am a lifelong Democrat who, like a couple others, sees a lack of specifics and a lack of experience with Obama. The partisan Republican party will not disappear this next election, nor will the conservative elements of the Democratic party, and I have no confidence he will be able to effectively deal with these elements in DC, particularly if the Dems don't get a filibuster proof 60 votes in the Senate.

I feel he has not been fully vetted by a critical press, and I hope that takes place over the next few weeks. Unlike some of you, I hope Clinton and Edwards stay in the race. I would have no problem going to the convention without a cler nominee.

"But I would sure as heck vote for her over Huckabee et al."

Yeah, but I think they were saying McCain, not any Republican, and certainly not Huckabee.

McCain isn't generally thought of as possible to win the Republican nomination. He's too sensible.

rd

Dear Jon:

Why is it you were unable to actually print the polling numbers?

Here they are...39% Obama 29% Clinton

Rather than a vague "double digit" lead reference, you specifically excluded the numbers. Believe me when you see them in print its stunning. If HRC was in the lead, the numbers would be printed. Why is that? As shameless as Edwards's campaigning techiniques have been he was accurate at the debate when he noted HRC's change in language now that she was not leading. Additionally, the numbers are moving in different directions. Obama is surging while Clinton is dropping. Ufortunately the negativity will only get worse in the days and weeks ahead. I agree with Post readers who have extolled Obama to keep the faith and stay positive.