Hi, there!..6ac6330bc803add9291ea8ec7ad87a41

'petra2' writes:
I've always voted Republican in elections -- going all the way back to Reagan. And guess what, barring something unforeseen, I'm planning to pull the lever for Hillary in November of 2008 (and yes, folks, I know there's that little matter of her having to win the nomination). I like Obama, too, but he's frankly a bit too far to the left for me. John Edwards just seems tired, and all the Republicans running are incredible pander bears (pandering to the extreme right wing, that is). It is somewhat disconcerting to have yet another dynasty member as our next president. But the times we live in are too critical NOT to choose the best person for the job. I don't care if she's not warm, or not spontaneous, or not likable. Dogonnit, she's clearly the most polished, intelligent, hard-working, well-prepared, and competent candidate running. We can't settle for anything else. I'm personally hoping for a Hillary-Obama ticket in 2008.
'freespeak' writes:
The question is, can anyone stop Clinton?
I say, if they can, now is the time to step up to the plate. She just did five talk shows in one day and hit it out of the ballpark.
Batter up?
I'm a proud supporter of Hillary Clinton (and an Independent from New Hampshire).
I don't understand who these people are, who have these 'HORRIBLE' memories of the nation under the leadership of Bill Clinton.
When Clinton left office, 70% of the nation thought we were going in the right direction.
Currently, 70% of the nation thinks we're going in the WRONG direction.
Oh!
The people who have bad memories of the Clinton years think Bush is doing' a heckuva job!
I get it.
'charly_n' writes:
After the 2006 midterm election, I think Hillary couldn't choose a more perfect year to run for president.
The whole country is now leaning toward Democrats. People are just so unhappy and fed up with the Republican Party which has controlled the country for almost 8 years now. Any Democrats (yes even Hillary) has better chance to win 2008 presidency than any republican. I don't see all these unhappy Americans who clearly want a change in direction in 2006 would vote for another republican again over Hillary.
In 2006, we all saw a lot of good republicans lost their seats to some never-heard-before Democrats because of this effect.
I'm certain that Hillary will prove everybody wrong and she will become the first woman President.
'jnurse' writes:
All you Hillary haters on here are just mad because your candidates have been getting stomped by her for almost a year now. Underestimate her at your own expense. The woman is brilliant, and more politically skilled than her husband. In the general election, she is going to do the Republicans, what she has done to her fellow Democrats for the past year, and that is make them luck unprepared to lead the free world. In November 08, voters are going to be faced with a choice: vote to make history with electing the first woman and also change the course of the past 8 years, or vote for more of the same with a boring white male who backs all of Bush's policies. I think that we have 51% of America that will vote for the former. If you disagree, just wait and see. Her campaign has been flawless, and will continue as such... Enjoy the shadow.
'winngerald' writes:
petera1, no one could say it better than you did! The Republicans view her as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (at least until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by Republicans) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my--yes MY--Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republican candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.
You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's reelection support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was reelected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do.
I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republican-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!
'jmmiller' writes:
"As a moderate Republican, I find the remarks about Hillary being too divisive either unreflective or disingenuous. Of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one I would consider voting for because she is the only one who takes seriously America's role in the wider world. It strikes me that a lot of the animosity towards her is from the far left that wants to return to the labor glory days of the 1930's. They're upset because she won't hew to the MoveOn orthodoxy. The netroots who are drunk now with their power better get some religion soon - a perception that the Democratic nominee is too closely associated with them will be poison in the general election."
'ogdeeds' writes:
jeez...get over it...for every nasty accusation hurled at Clinton, you can find an equally nasty (if that is how some choose to see it) issue in someone else. All this talk about her taking big $ from corporations, etc.....it is what she does with it that matters. Mostly what I hear her talking about is helping families, children, and the middle class. And oh, by the way, she also has to be president to all those other groups (lawyers, lobbyists, teachers, carpenters, rich CEOs, etc., etc.)Which some of you may or may not like, you know, like other Americans? The last thing we need is another president who only wants to be president to his base. Clinton is inclusive, and will lead for the good of all Americans as well as putting our country back where we deserve to be....respected and (jealously) admired, both for our greatness, and for the goodness we represent...and let me tell you, goodness does not include invading other countries under the guise of "protecting America" - just so one uninformed and ideological president can play out his ideological fantasies of 'transforming the middle east'...what a joke (instead of going after bin laden, the one who attacked us on 9/11 - oops, sorry, some of you still believe Iraq was connected to 9/11) we need someone like Hillary...thoughtful, knowledgeable and smart.
'wesfromGA' writes:
One has to smile at all the "I'll never vote for her" postings. If you are a Republican you were never going to vote for her anyway, if you are one of the distinct minority of Hillary haters on the left of the Democratic Party the essential silliness of this position will soon become apparent if she gets the nod. On present evidence this seems highly likely much to the chagrin of Mr. Balz and the media world who want a horse race because it sells newspapers and air time which is why there is all the parsing in his piece although he accepts the most likely outcome. Absent a major slip up there seems little doubt she has it wrapped up. Contrary to some assertions above she does not do conspicuously worse than Edwards or Obama against any member of the Republican field. On the contrary she does better than either of them and while they have been stuck for months in the mid twenties and mid teens for months she has steadily improved her position and has now been sitting in the low forties for weeks. In Iowa she has come from behind and leads in most polls. Why? Because she is self evidently the best candidate. She has a formidable machine, plenty of money and a few more difficult to pin down advantages like Gender and the presence of Bill who is widely respected much to the chagrin of the right.
The right must have choked over their coffee when Greenspan recently gave Bill stellar grades and of course they responded as they always do by launch personal attacks (there's a typical example in today's post from Novak).
There is no question she is going to get the nomination and a 60% chance she's going to win the presidency. Even some right wingers like Karl Rove are gloomily admitting it.
All the negative comments about Hillary on this board are from disgruntled Republicans who do not have a great choice in their party and will elect a nominee called "none of the above" because Republicans will stay home in 2008.
What a stark contrast there is in the Republican nomination and the Democratic nomination campaigns. Republicans know fully well after G. W. Bush we can only have a Democratic President and its going to be Hillary this time!
People and the writer of this article give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.
I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.
People forget that Giuliani dropped out in that first Senate race not because of prostate cancer, but because he saw the writing on the wall, which was a certain defeat and an end to his political dreams.
We may have the re-match that we never had. Rudy vs. Hillary. Single point campaign of 9-11 against well rounded Hillary.
When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.
Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on yesterday's sweep of the Sunday news shows.
It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"
People underestimate the positive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.
It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.
It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.
'jmartin' writes:
For people that say Hillary unelectable? Let's see.
In the September 2007 poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal, Hillary 49% vs. Rudy 42%. Hillary 50% vs. Fred Thompson 41%. Hillary 51% vs. Romney 38%.

September 2007 poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.: Hillary 50% vs. Rudy 46%, Hillary 55% vs. Fred Thompson 42%. Same poll, Obama 45% vs. Rudy 49%. Obama 53% vs. Fred Thompson 41%.

Inevitable? Perhaps not. Unelectable? Not that either.

"Barack does not have what it takes to beat any Republican. That's gospel truth. Even Ron Paul will trounce him in california."

I'm sorry Kessington, but where do you come up with this stuff? Gospel truth? Oh, is your use of a religious phrase supposed to make it more true?

Ron Paul will trounce him in California? Again, how do you come up with this stuff? You must be working under the right wing philosophy: just say it and it will be true.

So tell us, what does it take to beat a Republican? And what exactly does it mean to be "Presidential" and what makes Hillary more "Presidential" than Obama?

Its sad that most people do exactly what you just did, they make decisions based on nothing more than CNN and Fox soundbites they happen to hear as they are channel surfing.

PG

I'm not at all sure who will win the dems, nomination. I do know this. Bill C, was known to be able to "feel our pain", his wife comes across as the one who will inflict it if we disagree. I'm independent but I'm voting ABC. Tag team wrestling isn't a change just because you put the woman in the rink. Any republican not sucking up to Bush would provide more real change than Hilary who would be recycled Bill without the empathy.

I do beleived that Obama is doing the right thing to win the Democratic nomination, and he has my vote.

If you want to change the politics in Washington, get rid of the Democratic and Republican parties! There have to be more choices for the people.

Get rid of the pork barrel spending.

Get rid of the electoral college.

OBAMA drives a CHANGE MACHINE powered by THE PEOPLE. There is no stopping him. His intregity, respectability, believability and the pure sense of HOPE that pervade his message are captivating.

The way I see it, those who say that HRC will win the nomination may be right. If she does win, I agree that the best VP choice would be Obama. I like him because he voices the need to change. I also like Clinton because of her husband, whom I thought was a good president, regardless of his personal life.

As for the Republican side, I see Guiliani, McCain, and Romney as their front-runners. On our side, we have Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. Right now, Guiliani may end up as the Republican nominee. If so and Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, it will be the first time since JFK that we will have a president from the North, thus disproving my father's former professor's proclamation that we will never have another president from the North.

When it came to picking who would win the Democratic nomination, I have been perfect on every Democratic primary since 1984 when I first became interested in politics. Right now, I am not saying who would be the front-runner yet becasue Obama and Edwards can still beat Clinton for the nomination.

I will say one thing. I would rather see a Democratic president than a Republican president. I admire the Republican candidates who distance themselves from President George W. Bush, whom I think is a very bad president and will go down in history for destroying America's image in the world. The Republicans do have very good candidates in Guiliani, McCain, and Romney. I believe that they are the three front-runners of the Republican Party.

I will admit that as of now, I would vote for Hilary Rodham Clinton. She has already made history by becoming the first MAJOR woman candidate. If Clinton gets the nomination, she will make HISTORY!! She would be the first woman presidential candidate ever, and the second candidate to be on a ticket. The first one for a major party, in case people have forgotten, was Geraldine Ferraro. To my surprise, she is Clinton's campaign fundraiser!! :) Here is the link: http://www.sacbee.com/341/story/221614.html. I glad to see that. By the way, if Clinton does get nominated for the Democratic Party, it will mean that there are many Americans who will support her for the presidential nomination. :) What I do not understand is why many women would be opposed to haveing HRC as president. My vote is that if Clinton chooses Obama as her VP, it will be a very tough ticket to beat. I do not think Guiliani could put up a ticket that can beat the Clinton/Obama ticket at all. I do not think any Republican is ready for change and that they will continue down the path that will destroy the USA. On the other hand, I think the Democrats are going to save the USA from destruction, or at least slow down the destruction of the USA.

The way I see it is that the race will be between Guiliani and Clinton. They will fight it out and neither of them will have a landslide. The race will be very close again for the third time in a row.

Since the race is still too early to decide, I am leaning towards Clinton. Even though I said I would vote for Clinton as of now, Obama and Edwards still have a chance to beat Clinton.

Obama's ad is just like any other political advertisement. He wants to end lobbiest power, but he takes a ton of lobbiest money from trial lawyers and others and even used this money for his own personal gain including getting into the house he owns. If he gets into office it will be a disaster. He will pull the troops out of Iraq too soon and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iraqis will die, as happened in Vietnam. He won't take the terrorist threat seriously and will apologize instead of defend our country and we will be attacked again on our soil.

He will increase taxes and create a heavier burden for small businesses, even though he will claim he is just taxing the rich, this will cause our economy to go into recession (but it will probably be after he leaves office, and it will be blamed on the Republicans)

We already have proof from Rudy Juliani's tax cuts in New York that tax cuts spurs economic growth and actually increases tax revenue (as it did in New York by 30%) and through Reagan's presidency, where the same thing occured. ...Republican's do not hate America, but love this nation, and don't want to see it go down the drain through higher taxes, frivolous lawsuits, huge social programs that can't be paid for over the long run and failed policies.

America needs to focus on what made it great in the first place: God, low taxes, limited government, and the pursuit of happiness, which means freedom without too much regulation.

Let's face it: barack Obama is too naive and as divisive as Dick Cheney and George Bush. Look closely at his ofiicial website blogs and you'll notice that there are more references to Hillary Clinton and what she says and does than there are to America and the problems assailing us.

Jimmy J ...you sir are a bold faced LIAR.

I am on the site repeatedly and his main blogs have nothing to do with Hillary. Now what comments others might make he doesn't try to control unless they are abussive. Unlike the Hillary site where people are not allowed to leave comments at all. Everything is filtered..it is a one way conversation. This from the woman who says lets have a conversation.

What most of you Hillary nuts fail to realize is that Obama supporters believe in HIM. They are very unlikely ( most of them) to ever support Hillary because she represents just the opposite of Obama. They have a better likely hood of supporting any other Democrat if he doesn't win the nomination but not Hillary. So where would that put the Democratic party in the GE when 1/4 of the base is unsuppotive?

It is SOOO easy to simply sit in our virtual pulpits and declare what we believe to be fact as "gospel truth". But without facts such statements are simply something to feed and placate the weak-minded.

And to those who feel that Mr. Obama's declining to vote on the MoveOn.org condemnation is wrong, please consider this:

What do we teach our children to do when they are being harassed or asked to do something they shouldn't?

We tell them to ignore them.

And yet we expect our politicians to do just the opposite. Kinda silly, isn't it? What Mr. Obama did was give that bill the treatment it deserved. There was no need for that type of bill to be sucking up Congress' time and energy when there are MUCH bigger problems that require their attention. C'mon, folks! Get real!

Why did Obama return a no vote on the Move on ad? This man just lost my support and that of my friends with that act. Now that he's running for President he can't stay on the sidelines hoping not to offend sworn enemies. He should have voted for or against the Senate Resolution. Why act nice trying not to offend Republican sensibilities and then expect Move on.org to support his campaign. Obviously, he is not man enough to rule this nation.

Barack does not have what it takes to beat any Republican. That's gospel truth. Even Ron Paul will trounce him in california. Hillary is mature and strong to lead. Let Barack back off his criticism of our President in waiting. Anyway, GW bush did all that too when it was dawning on him that Nancy Pelosi was soon to be get the gavel from Dennis Hastert. No matter the attacks Hill just stays strong and watch it: She doesn't exploit Barcak's naievity to score political points. She's just very Presidential.

Let's face it: barack Obama is too naive and as divisive as Dick Cheney and George Bush. Look closely at his ofiicial website blogs and you'll notice that there are more references to Hillary Clinton and what she says and does than there are to America and the problems assailing us. He is a Politician and can not do anything he says he'll do. Change the Politics in Washington? Empty and vague promises. How will he accomplish that? By forcing rules down the throats of Legislators who have been there years before he met Michelle and then when there's a revolt what will he do about that? Veto their bills? He will be even more divisive than he potrays Hillary to be. Who best to unite the camps in Washington than a woman who every body agrees is a mother: Tough, Strong and sensitive to the issues affecting Middle class workers. Then Hillary is now more mature than the 90s. She's learned a lot since they were in the White House. Her past experiences would only prepare her for a more stable service in the White House. Barack would be too naive he'll have to make his mistakes to learn. That's why we believe Hillary would be ready to hit the ground running in the right direction from Day one. HRC 08 in the White House!

Sorry I couldn't read every single comment.

I like Obama, his ideal to take back the government from both extreme sides of the political fence. If he gets nominated, he will have my support.
I'm one of those who is sick and tired of the devisive tone of government today...and it's been BOTH sides, dems and gop, who are responsible.
Kick out the lobbyists, install mandated term limits, and listen to ALL the people.
Get somebody in there who'll do what needs to be done.

HRC is clearly too divisive and provacative a figure. If she wins nomination, the partisanship will be worse than ever.

Obama could actually bring people back to caring about the country's problems instead of who's getting richer or getting laid.

Chris, Surely you know that the REAL candidate of change in this election is JOHN EDWARDS. You also know that Edwards, on every major issue, has lead and Clinton and Obama have followed. Enough said.

Chris, your post really should have mentioned 1) that the Dean campaign had the same strategy of focusing on being a movement candidate and mobilizing disaffected liberals, and 2) that strategy failed. In other words, no matter how appealing it may be to political junkies that a candidate runs on his innovative campaigning, the general public just doesn't give a hoot.

Wendy,
The REPULICAN is crushing this COUNTRY like a mosquito. WE the PEOPLE must stand behind the PRESIDENT who look after the interested of its people.

Integrity and honesty is not a mask one can put on or take off. IF people would open their eyes and not their pockets. These student believe they felt his in OBAMA and they probably has a far more insight than you have.

There is a lot more to OBAMA than his looks.

A CARING NATURE goes a long way. THIS IS WHAT IS MISSING WITH OUR LEADERSHIP TODAY. THEY DON'T GIVE A RAT....A ABOUT ANYONE EXCEPT THEMSELVES AND THEIR FRIENDS. HOW MANY OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS ARE IN IRAQ?

Hilary, I love Hilary and liked Bill as well. I voted for him. Because of the climate of AMERICA needed a change. Their was too too much hate among American. This is where we are today, now it has gones beyond just American hating American.

I feel that the only person who can bring us together is OBAMA. Have you notice your surrounding, nationally and internationally?

This has nothing to do with looks or color. The best man/woman for the job is a intelligent, honest and caring individual.

od

'He didn't have access to classified information that Hilary and Edwards did'
That's rediculous. The whole nation was sold on this war, and it wasn't any classified information that sold it. It was the lies Bush and Admin. told us all outright- mixed with anxiety about what had just happened.
Anybody who doesn't think it took enormous courage to be against the war at that time has forgotten.. Shoot, I joined the Army myself.
No Obama was one of very few who was right. And sadly I was wrong too, and probably most of you were as well.

Look what experience has done to America. When Clinton ran for President, people talked about his lack (enough) experience to run for president. I said then and I say now. Sometime too much experience can do more harm than good. Which has been proven over the decade.
Obama projects a sense of honesty and trustworthiness. It is not just about America, but the rest of the world.
With a man like Obama I feel a sense of peace. At ease. When he is in the White House, we can all get a good nights sleep. I haven't been able to sleep since Bush has been in office. That man is EVIL and so is his side kick, Cheney. Look at these people, dishonest written all over them. And, Greed.
Obama would be like a breath of fresh air for this Country and the world. We need peace.
If America can accept Arnold, from Austria (of all places, as governor of Califoria. Why can't we trust one of our own.
WE NEED OBAMA. GIVE THE MAN A CHANCE. TRUST IN A CHANGE, A NEW BEGINNING.
VOTE OBAMA

Odella

Its interesting...when Democratic undecideds finally choose to go with Hilary, their reason is usually one of "well, she has the best chance of winning" or "well, she's going to win the nomination anyway". But when those people go for Obama, their reasons are based on what Obama believes or says he will do.

Its time we elect someone because we believe in them and their message, not because "they will win anyway"!

PG

Olson Johnson -- "From your mouth to God's ears" Let it be so!

I have a simple thesis. If America chooses Obama, it will continue to be the leading empire in the globe. If another republican is elected there will be a continuous chaos. Look and examine prudently at all of the leading candidates of republican party. You sense arrogance and pride.
I read and hear people argue that Obama is not experienced. But Obama is very decent and humble. What America needs now is a humble person.
Americans, don't be confused he is not going to be a CEO of USA, he is going to be your leader. There is a huge difference between 'leadership' and 'management'. If you want managers, elect people like Mit Romeny and Juliani, if you want leaders elect Obama or Mike Huckbee.
God bless America, the beacon of freedom and the home of many nationalities and races.

I personally have never seen anyone connect with me like Obama has through this commercial. I am a Hillary supporter mainly because of her husband who I think is a master of politics and smart. But, now...I am crossing the line to Obama. He really shows his stuff...real presidential.

Olson Johnson,

That was the best analysis of the primary process I have read so far! Thank you.

Chris, I assume you were just as angry at Bush for not denouncing the swift boat ads, right? Interesting how when the right wing sends out its goons to lie and distort facts, the Rupubs can get away with saying "I am not affiliated with them and they have a right to free speach, blah, blah, blah", but if someone on the left sends out an ad that is in any way critical of this administration, all of a sudden they are called traitors and evil people and if they aren't denounced by each and every Democrat, then those Dems are by association just as evil. LOL, you guys never cease to amaze me! The Moveon.org ad is old news, time for you to move on.

You make a lot of mention about who is advising Obama, but you fail to give any details or proof of how he is just as devisive or what he has done to prove he is just another politician. And if this is your main complaint about him, then who exactly are you supporting for president (and saying that you haven't decided, but have an open mind is a cop-out)?

For you to say he has no experience running anything shows how little you know about him. Please, at least take some time to do some research before making your erroneous statements. Oh wait, that's right, I can't blame you. You are just repeating the standard Repub talking points. Keep on, good soldier!

PG

IMPORTANT NEWS

Pope: Sunday Worship a "Necessity" For All
September 17, 2007 | From theTrumpet.com
Pope Benedict XVI says your life depends upon worshiping on Sunday.

"Sine dominico non possumus!" "Without Sunday [worship] we cannot live!" Pope Benedict xvi declared during a mass on September 9 at St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna.

Speaking on the final day of his three-day visit to Austria, the German pope voiced a strong call for Christians to revive Sunday keeping as an all-important religious practice.

"Give the soul its Sunday, give Sunday its soul," he chanted before a rain-soaked crowd of 40,000.

Benedict said that Sunday, which he stated has its origin as "the day of the dawning of creation," was "also the church's weekly feast of creation."

Warning against the evils of allowing Sunday to become just a part of the weekend, the pope said people needed to have a spiritual focus during the first day of the week, or else leisure time would just become wasted time.

Sunday worship, he warned, was not just a "precept" to be casually adhered to, but a "necessity" for all people.

In the opening greeting, the archbishop of Vienna said a movement in Austria had been initiated to protect "Sunday from tendencies to empty [it] of its meaning."

In Austria, most businesses are restricted from operating on Sunday. However, some business groups are pressuring the government to be allowed to open, a move Roman Catholic groups vehemently oppose.

During Benedict's trip to Austria, he called for Europe to look to its Christian roots, to trust in God and to defend traditional values.

The pope has been very vocal about Europe's Christian-or Catholic-roots, and is pushing to have them included in the European Constitution. Although laws concerning Sunday worship are currently determined by individual nations, look for the European Union to eventually gain jurisdiction over the work week-which is one big reason the Catholic Church is so intimately involved with the evolution of the EU. For more on the Catholic Church and Europe, read "The Pope Trumpets Sunday" by the Trumpet's editor in chief. .

"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come (the return of Christ), except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exaltheth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3,4

"If protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath Day. In keeping the Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church."--Albert Smith, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Baltimore, replying for the cardinal in a letter of Feb. 10, 1920.

Does the Papacy acknowledge changing the seventh-day Sabbath? It does. The Catechismus Romanus was commanded by the Council of Trent and published by the Vatican Press, by order of Pope Pius V, in 1566. This catechism for the priests says: "It pleased the church of God, that the religious celebration of the Sabbath day should be transferred to 'the Lord's day.'--Catechism of the Council of Trent (Donovan's translation, 1867), part 3, chap. 4, p. 345. The same, in slightly different wording is in the McHugh and Callan translation (1937 ed.), p. 402. "Question: How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays? "Answer: By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church."--Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (1833 approbation), p. 58. (Same statement in Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. by Daniel Ferris {1916 ed.}, p. 67.) "Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism (3d ed.), p. 174. "The Catholic Church,...by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."--The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893. "Question: Is Saturday the 7th day according to the Bible & the Ten Commandments? Answer: I answer yes. "Question: Is Sunday the first day of the week & did the Church change the 7th day--Saturday--for Sunday, the 1st day: Answer: "I answer yes." "Question: Did Christ change the day? Answer: I answer no! Faithfully yours, "J. Card. Gibbons"--Gibbons autograph letter.

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for the doctrines the commandments of men." Matthew 15:9

Receiving the mark of the beast or the seal of God in the mind or the hand is not a literal "mark" to be put on our foreheads or our hand but it is our consent to whom we will obey. "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey? Romans 6:16

Done.

The Olson Johnson post at 1:29A sounds credible to me because it accurately describes the mechanics of the caucus. Please note it.

"To win, Obama must convince people in Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and beyond that he is the only candidate running for president who can truly change the things they find distasteful and off-putting about politics."

He can't even stand up and say just how distasteful and off-putting calling one of the few Generals who was critical of our strategy early on in the war a traitor by a few wing nuts.

He's not going to change anything. Take a look at Chicago politics and all those who are advising him. I am telling you, the last thing we need is to exchange the divisive and corrupt culture of Washington with the kind of divisive and more corrupt politics practiced in the state of IL and the city of Chicago. Obama didn't change anything here, he doesn't have any experience running anything or any understanding of our military, and he doesn't have the good judgment to see an opportunity to truly stand up to the Karl Rove style of politics of personnel destruction when it is put right in front of him.

This campaign is over for him. And if he doesn't stop ridiculing his fellow senate colleagues, it may have been one of the shortest lived national political careers we have ever seen.

That ad was great! I think that type of ad, with heavy rotation, will do well in middle America, where people are tired of the angry tone that politics has taken on in the last 10 years.

I hope the media continues to ignore him. It will be a great day when he wins (or comes in second to Edwards) the Iowa primary and Hilary comes in 3rd. And once he wins Iowa, people on other states will finally begin to give him the credit and respect he deserves.

How many "Republicans for Clinton" sites are there out there? Obama is someone who can speak in a way that people who disagree with him on ideology will listen to him. There is not one repub who will listen to anything that Hilary has to say, so a win by her will give us another 4/8 years of deadlock and gridlock in Washington (unless the Dems can pick up 9 Senate seats in '08 to have a filibuster-proof majority).

I think the Repubs should be more fearful of an Obama nomination than a Clinton nomination. Obama can pull the Reagan Democrats back into the fold, appeal to the independents, and even get many moderate "suburbia Repubs" to vote for him. In pulling all of those groups, he can win in a land-slide and have the heads of all of those "blinder mentality" repubs in the Congress spinning.

It is amazing to me how all of the Repub canidadates are still playing the game of running to the hard right. They are playing the politics of what rights they want to take away from people, how they want to exclude people, and how they will keep us safe by turning the US into a fascist regime where its citizens no longer enjoy many of the rights that make this democracy so great. When you listen to their debates, this is all they talk about.

It is also amazing to me to look at the Repub candidates and note that they are all angry and bitter old white men who have a "my way or the highway" mentality (with the possible exception of Huckabee, he's not so old and not so bitter).

Meanwhile, the Dems are fielding a list of candidates that are much more representative of what our country has become and have done so for the last 25 years.

I, for one, and looking forward to an Obama/Edwards ticket for '08 (Gore is not running and is not a candidate, so let it go).

Oh, and for those who say "the country just isn't ready for a black president"...they said the same thing about Civil Rights in the mid 60s..."go slow, be patient, the country just isn't ready for Civil Rights. It will happen eventually, but not just yet". Its time for us to make the country realize that it is in fact ready for a black president.
PG

There is a great post on the Obama site explaining "...why many of us feel so confident about Barack's ability to win...it helps to understand the Byzantine process...and here's how I see it.

"First, everyone not named Hillary Clinton believes there are 2 slots in this race, the Hillary Slot and the NOT Hillary slot, and whomever gets the Not Hillary slot wins because she cannot get past 40%. As you can see from the polls today, she is actually slipping in her support. She has been the default Democrat for most of the summer but as people are getting engaged and really start looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates both as a general election candidate and as a President, people are leaving her team and moving to undecided.

"Second, the Iowa caucuses are more than just showing up to place a vote. We are going to shock the world in Iowa and here's why:

"The most important thing to know about Iowa is viability.

"You must be viable in each of the over 1,900 precincts. That means you must have a minimum of 15% support in every precinct or you get no votes. So those folks like Biden and Richardson that are doing okay but do not have enough money to have a field program to make sure that they have viability in all 1,900 plus precinct will not make viability in most of the precincts. Their voters decide to either caucus with another candidate or go with none of the above (in 1976, Jimmy Carter came in second to none of the above).

"So here's the $64,000 question; where do these voters go? You have 3 candidates bunched around 25% which basically leaves another 25% in play. Here's what I think ... If you're not with Senator Clinton today, you probably aren't gonna be as a second choice. And in Iowa, where John Edwards has been for the better part of 6 years, it is unlikely that people default to him either. Moreover, our staff in Iowa is phenomenal with Paul Tewes (Gore's State Director) as our state Director and Kerry's Iowa Director, John Norris, helping out not to mention that we have 28 offices open around the state. I think Kerry had less than 10 at this point. This is where our resources makes a huge difference.

"One last thing about Iowa that is quirky. You can change your registration the day of the caucuses. About a month ago there was a poll that had Barack running fourth in the REPUBLICAN primary in Iowa, beating McCain.

"As I have said before, our opponents have either replaced their state director and have had even more recent staff shake ups or have the state being run by Jen O'Malley, Jim Davis's Campaign Manager. I think I'll take our team.

"After Iowa, everything is fluid. Senator Clinton is running a campaign of inevitability. That doesn't go over well in NH and as we learned in the Kerry race, NH voters break unbelievably late AND Independents can vote in either Party's primary. Early polling suggests that over 70% of Independents are going to vote in the Democratic Primary. Do you know many Independents who favor Senator Clinton? I don't and they could make up close to 40% of the primary vote.

"We then roll into SC. Every campaign will admit off the record that we are winning there now and that is with Senator Clinton winning the African American vote. I know of no one who seriously looks at politics that believes that on election day, Barack does not win the African America vote by a substantial margin no matter what people currently tell pollsters when the call folks. If that is the case, then EVERY poll taken artificially inflates Senator Clinton's numbers, regardless of whether it is a state poll or a national poll, if it includes any African American vote.

"And then there is February 5th. The national press and the punditry class have breathlessly talked about the fact that we will have a nominee by the morning of February 6th. I happen to think that is highly unlikely and here's why.

"You need to accumulate approximately 2,100 delegates to get the nomination. By the end of February 5th, approximately 2,200 will be distributed BUT unlike the Republican party, we don't have winner take all states. The delegates are distributed proportionately by the vote with certain bonuses for winning.

"Do you think that either Barack or Senator Clinton will concede if one of them is at 1,100 delegates and the other is at 850 with the other candidates with the rest? This is a war of attrition. John Kerry won 28 out of 30 states before John Edwards got out on March 4th. While Senator Clinton's campaign may face a wobbly moment if she gets beaten in 2 out of the first three contests because her campaign is about inevitability and getting whacked kind of hurts that argument, it is clear that we will pick up support at a much higher rate when other campaigns have to get out of the race than she will. We will be gaining steam and momentum at the critical time.

"If we continue to fund this movement for change, we will win this thing. The calendar works for us, the resources we have invested in this campaign are being used incredibly well and if we really want to change this country and the world, we have that opportunity..."

Barack Obama's ad is sensational! I vote regularly and I am 68 years old. I do not want to see one more negative ad. I do not listen to negative & demeaning ads. I do not believe the information proclaimed in neagative and demeaning ads. The public wants to believe and trust their President. My first vote was for JFK. Senator Obama is JFK in spades. Check out Charlie Rose's interview with Ted Sorensen for his views and endorsement. Barack has so much support on the the ground that the polls do not capture in any way. He is such an amazing human being and that is what we all want.

I think Obama has more going for him than the mainstream media and political pundits realize.

I think all of you are going to get a surprise when the actual voting starts. Barack is the right man at the right time for a change. Hilliary is the past, she and all of you just don't know it yet, or don't want to face up to it.

Wendy -- So you helped fill us in on what "doesn't matter," which I gather includes the ability to look at all sides of an issue, inspire people, and heal long-standing divisions in the country. Out of curiosity, what exactly DOES matter in your view?

You seem to be a Hillary supporter, so I suspect the word "experience" is going to come up if you do reply to this. Since Hillary herself, without Bill, hasn't been elected as long as Obama and hasn't passed ANY legislation of note since becoming a senator, that's a curious argument to me. I'll vote for her if she's the nominee, but I have no idea what skills or abilities she's demonstrated that Obama hasn't. Fill me in.

To Mr Cillizza and Kristin:

Dear Mr. Chris Cillizza:

Obama is handsome, articulate, inspiring. However, these are not the qualities for the president of United States. A poet can make an excellent Ad with even more moving rhetoric. An inspirational speaker can make you cry. Yet, none of these is enough for being president of our great country. Making an excellent ad should not be a criterion for voting for someone --He has enough money to hire someone to write a good speech or make a good ad. When it comes to facing enemy, making important decision in a split second is much more important than inspirational speech that can make people cry.

Dear Kristin:

Being a good professor who can listen to different opinions is far from enough to be elected as our presidents (I know lots of professors like him, but they can not be president).

When it comes to someone as fresh faced as Obama, sure he did not have chance to be attached yet as what Clinton experienced in the past 15 years, but wait. If he is the one gets the nomination, Republicans will crush him as they do to a mosquito! Please, we are talking about THE leader of our country, not a nice person, not a patient person, not an articulate teacher, etc., etc., etc. People do not understand that when it comes to the president of the United States, none of these matters.

like kirtsen above I too was a student of Senator Obama's. He's the real deal for the exact reasons Kirsten reveals: he's pragmatic, non-ideological, and committed to change.

As for the idea that Obama lacked guts in opposing the war:

1) Would you say Al Gore, Howard Dean, and Wes Clark lacked guts? I doubt it.

2) Obama was the only dem among all dems in his senate primary to be against the war.

3) voting against the war is important, but he also stated exactly why he was against the war and did so for precisely the reasons we see today. that's what's impressive.

You want a CHANGE? Change that CD palyer by inserting my CONSERVATIVE MUSIC CD> No one else has put our passion to music--so I did!
www.conservativemusiconline.com

Someone had to put the light on Hillary, Edwards, and the Sean Penn crowd--and to music!

There'll be a black president before there will be a jewish president. That's the truth.

I find it fascinating that the people who say America will never elect a black person are usually black. I understand that when one has been the victim of racial profiling and dealing with predjudice and hypocrisy for an entire lifetime might give a person pause. Obama is a culmination of all things POSITIVE about America. He is not only black, and he is not only white. He is not all liberal, nor is he conservative. He is all the compexities that we all ARE and represent - he is you. He is the ONLY real candidate who represents the people of this country and not special interests or party. The polling numbers now do not reflect SO many things (including younger voters)- they are meaningless. The fact that Obama HAS created a movement and yes, we will go out in rain sleet or snow to vote for him and drag others with us, all will become clear when the real voting begins.

Ah, but sincerely, your wishful plan is a good idea. Well, something about the best laid plans of Marks and men . . .

Some of the characters around here do drive me to drink [bless them for that, at least!]. I think if I am available tomorrow, I'll go spew around the NY Times blogs. Ever gone fishing there? But their layout--in pages, newest entry first, so that you have to read Chinese style upward--is a real PIA and inferior to this WPost format.

Then again, maybe I'll get a life ... tomorrow?

And that's the way it is, Thursday, September 20th... Good night, and good luck!

Before Mr. Obama talks about change, he had better explain his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations; and his wife's membership also. This is an insidious organization that has managed to get the U.S. into the U.N., NATO, GATT, NAFDA, the WTO and the likely North American Union. Any candidate who is a member of the CFR ought to be disqualified, since it represents a real and significant threat to U.S. sovereignty. Obama is not alone; most of the other candidates are also members. This is not good.

As well, I like Obama personally. He is a smart and articulate man, but a junior senator does not quite yet merit the white house. Maybe in a few years, if he can shuck the CFR membership. Until then, Ron Paul has my vote. This man is taking about sweeping, breath-taking changes.

RadPat,

Old as I am for 6th Street, I remember my days on the bounding main - but here the sun still battles against the raging gloom.

I saw the esteemed Chairman explain the need to delimit and decouple currency from the gold standard to support burgeoning economies and the requirement for central banks to match the money supply to the goods and services being exchanged.

But, enough of that.

As Judge and dcAustinite have noted, my plan to preserve a thoughtful thread went for naught. As a fictional heroine once said at the close of a technicolor adaptation of a Civil War potboiler:
"Tomorrow is another day."

Let's bookmark this thread and use it and maybe che, and the anonymous cut-and-paster, and Rufi, and KOZ, and MikeB will NEVER find it. :)"

what grade are you in mark?

Mark-ourmanonsixthstreet ;)

Did you catch Greenspan on the Daily Show the other night? Guess what he brought up? He said the Fed was created to replace the economic stability that was lost when the US went off the ... well, I said I wouldn't say it again, so I won't.

Well, the sun is over the yard-arm, if you know what that means.

Mark, I think the NYT ad was crude and sophomoric.
A better ad would have said

"MoveOn.org Encourages Everyone Who Sees This To Remember That, As A Professional Soldier, General Petraeus Is Subordinate To President Bush, And Thus The Slim-To-Nonexistent Chance That He Will Disagree Publicly (Or At All) With His Commander In Chief Should Cause All To Regard His Testimony With A Healthy Degree Of Skepticism."

But who's gonna read that? I agree, the shock value of what was printed was not only disrespectful but also juvenile, and thus counterproductive. However, I also think it's not necessarily as big a deal as the GOP is trying to make it.

On a related note, I'm sure you all noticed that one of the (three?) sheiks in Anbar who has been working with the Americans was promptly assassinated by al Qaeda after Petraeus finished testifying as to how much better things are getting there. A few days later, the oil-sharing agreement officially fell apart. Progress?

Yeah, it was nice while it lasted but now we have a racist fearmonger in here. So I guess this one is over.

THREAD CLOSED. :-)

roo and reason, you should both join up here, too [see my tongue-in-cheek proposal at 5:26P].

roo, I did not read that B.O. had said that the ad did not represent his position but I am relieved that he said it. He as much as any single candidate should have found the ad distasteful.

You know that I think MoveOn has the right to criticize, and under NYT v. Sullivan has the right to criticize a public figure so harshly, that the comments would be defamatory if not made about a public figure. But I think that the particular ad was gratuitously insulting before the fact, and sophomoric.

And I think your list missed the actual "MoveOn" option:

3. "We want to prejudice the audience by labeling the witness an untrustworthy liar before he testifies."

"President.......Hussein Obama"

Too late, Mark.

I wish commentators would stop playing the
mind games with the Obama for President
campaign. Stop wasting yours & the other
democratic candidates time. America is not going to
make a black man President. It is time to
stop these head games. I am a blackman &
I know it is not going to happen.

Just quickly looked at the threads today and only this one managed to survive.

psst! psst! bsimon, drindl, colin, truth, jd, blarg, bokonon, judge, dcAustinite, RadPat,AndyR, JasonL, lylepink, proud, Bobby C-W,vwcat,LoudonV, JimD, bhoomes, Mike the USAFA Falcon in NorCal,spartan,and others who drop by to engage:

Let's bookmark this thread and use it and maybe che, and the anonymous cut-and-paster, and Rufi, and KOZ, and MikeB will NEVER find it. :)

Wouldnt it be great if we could have the following cabinet in Washington if Barrack Hussein Obama is elected President:

President.......Hussein Obama

Vice President..Louis Farrakan

Sec Of State....Jesse Jackson

Sec of Defense..Al Sharpton and his gang

Treasurer.......Rep. Jefferson, the refrig man

Supreme Court...NAACP

This could be the ultimate cabinet that could have the motto...JUSTICE FOR ALL...

I must have been dreaming as the alarm clock woke me up !!!

Of course not, it was NOT a nightmare !!

I wish commentators would stop playing the
mind games with the Obama for President
campaign. Stop wasting yours & the other
democratic time. America is not going to
make a black man President. It is time to
stop these head games. I am a blackman &
I know it is not going to happen.

Mark in Austin--"5. He has made the purely symbolic gesture of voting against Iraq appropriations, and never did quite get a question off to Petraeus, and could not quite muster the absolutely minimal courage to say what Biden and Levin said about the MoveOn ad."

MoveOn again. Basically there should be two camps:

1. I do not think Petraeus lied, therefore the ad was inappropriate (but they have the right to say what they think.)

2. I think Petraeus is lying or at least misrepresenting facts while in uniform and with the precise intent to deny us the opportunity to make an informed choice. There is no more polite way to say that this is a huge breach--or betrayal--of trust.

Obama said the ad did not represent his position.

Bush is bad enough but if we get Clinton or Obama, the "change" we'll get will be a fraction of what the slumping dollar now is worth. On Greenspan, no one could understand what he was saying while he headed the Fed. Now, he's loud and clear: wasn't his fault. Washington should be closed and turned into a historical theme park.

"Let me add to the obvious, too. That kind of change is irrelevant to the kind of change we need."

Agreed, although I'd substitute "should be irrelevant" for " is irrelevant."

"And let me add the obvious: a generic black man as president represents just as much change (more in some quarters, less in others) as a generic woman"


Let me add to the obvious, too. That kind of change is irrelevant to the kind of change we need.

Judge C writes
"Unless I'm misinterpreting the rules the R NH voters would have to become I's to vote for Obama."

That appears to be correct. What, do they check your affiliation at the door & give you the appropriate ballot or something? Here in MN we get one ballot, but you're supposed to only vote for one party's candidates - but they're all on one ballot. I find it annoying, as I vote a split ticket & want to promote the best candidate in each race, who are rarely all from the same party.

Anyhow, here's another page on NH rules:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary
"Unlike most other states, New Hampshire permits independents, not just registered party members, to vote in a party's primary."

If you scroll down, they have a couple charts showing who's hot & who's not.

"Peter, a woman as president doesn't mean change." Have to add to Blarg's comment by pointing out that THIS woman, in particular, represents relatively less change than some other currently hypothetical female candidate. There is an awful lot of Clinton-fatigue out there.

And let me add the obvious: a generic black man as president represents just as much change (more in some quarters, less in others) as a generic woman.

Peter, a woman as president doesn't mean change. At least, not meaningful political change. Change is about what the president does, not who the president is.

I, and a lot of people, find Hillary's experience to be highly suspect. And you illustrated why in your second paragraph: "She was the SPOUSE of a politician who..." How much of her experience is based on being married to someone who did something meaningful?

"She can match her community activism with Obama's anytime. Obama is a nice intriguing Senator but he can't match Hillary for achievement and knowledge. A nice feel good commercial won't ever change that."

Wow, scared of Obama much?

Good point, bsimon but the only states that currently have open primaries are Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_election). Not NH or Iowa; not Nevada. South Carolina is in there but that's where I'd expect Obama's cross-over appeal to be most limited in the early going.

Currently, 43 percent of NH's registered voters are not affiliated with any party (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042501961.html). That's quite a lot of voters who could go either way. Unless I'm misinterpreting the rules the R NH voters would have to become I's to vote for Obama. Some might as they probably have some less-than-glowing opinions of Rudy.

good ad but still not a reason to vote for Obama- His real problem is trying to convince anyone that a woman as President doesn't in itself mean change- Hillary has what Obama doesn't- the experience to lead and being a symbol of change both in one candidate-

Obama claims to have worked as a community organizer for a few years- he forgets that Hillary worked as a community organizer for most of her life- She was the spouse of a politician who led the movement for change in Arkansas education- she led the fight for Universal Health care even though she lost it- but people recognize that just for that reason she is the best person to lead the fight as an elected President-

She can match her community activism with Obama's anytime. Obama is a nice intriguing Senator but he can't match Hillary for achievement and knowledge. A nice feel good commercial won't ever change that.

Judge
"Running even with HRC is very different than being 23 points behind in NH ( http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/new_hampshire_primary_clinton_40_obama_17_edwards_14 ). Those 23 point margins are awfully convincing even in a poll. 10 point polling leads can certainly be overcome. 23? Show me the historical example."

Isn't NH an odd duck, since independants vote there? It wasn't clear from the link that whether they counted independants or were just counting party faithful. I'm curious to see what the NH R & I voters do as it becomes more clear that the GOP front-runners are all bad choices. Stay home or vote for a Dem?

It's a good ad, not a great one.

It's a good as, not a great one.

There's no reason for anybody to drop out prior to the first voting, unless they have absolutely no support (which means no money, and they can't afford to stay in).

In sports when upsets occur they say, This is the reason we play the games!

Politics isn't any diferent.

No one has yet mentioned that Obama has the strongest ground organization in Iowa. It's even better than Edwards' organization, and he's been in the state for the last six years. Edwards probably already has all the supporters he's going to get.

Additionally, Obama is the only candidate on either side who is attracting significant crossover support from Independents and Republicans, who are disgusted with the last 20 years of divisive politics, and who like Obama's optimism. We used to have "Reagan Democrats." Now we have "Obama Republicans." How long has the Democratic party been wishing for a Democratic Reagan? Now we have one.

Obama also attracts large numbers of people who haven't voted before, or who don't regularly vote. In order to get onto the pollsters' lists, you have to vote fairly consistently, so their samples start out with an anti-Obama bias.

Obama's support is far deeper and stronger than the polls are currently showing. He has a very good chance of winning Iowa with voters not showing up in the Dem polls, and solidifying the anti-Hillary vote.

And with those crossover voters, Obama is by far the strongest candidate the Democrats have for the general election. Any Democratic racists still around will easily be cancelled out by the upsurge in African American vote that an Obama nomination certainly will inspire. Racist Republicans wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

Plus, Obama supporters are mainiacs. They'll trudge through blizzards to vote for him, and they'll drag innocent bystanders along with them.

lylepink--You miss what I thought was my blatantly obvious and single point. I don't care in the least who you think will win, or how accurate your predictions have been in the past (at least in your own opinion).

I want the best candidate for America. period.
What's best for our country, not for any party or any ideology.

Bush was able to win, twice [one way or the other]. Hillary is as bad as Bush, and clearly in some ways worse. She and Giuliani would both be bad for America, but she even more than that braying preencock Republican.

Actually, all I really want to know is what the going rate for a night in the Lincoln Bedroom will be in 2009.

I love Mike Gravel. He acts white.

The ad leaves me cold. I love what it's not -- no flags, no stirring music, no slow motion of him shaking hands with happy crowds of diverse well-wishers -- but I don't much like what it *is.* It seems platitudinous. It sounds like the same old rhetoric. He's very charismatic but I still am not sold that he is different.

"And have you looked at the early polls in Iowa? The 3 lead Democrats are basically tied. That means any of them has a good chance to win Iowa and get a boost in other states."

Hadn't looked at those, Blarg. I've been paying attention to the national numbers, watching Obama's slow downward drift. I sincerely hope you're right. Running even with HRC is very different than being 23 points behind in NH (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/new_hampshire_primary_clinton_40_obama_17_edwards_14). Those 23 point margins are awfully convincing even in a poll. 10 point polling leads can certainly be overcome. 23? Show me the historical example.