As Senator Barack Obama stated, "America our movement is now."

It is not about Bill and Hillary Clinton. It is about America grabbing hold to change.

Just look at them.

Are they really going to bring change to America? Or will we get the status quo because of who they are beholden to?

Or will we really have someone who will fight for change, if we have the guts for change.

I believe America wants a change. Not from the Republican. Not from a Democrat. But with someone who has vision for all of us. Someone who can be inclusive and respectful to us all. Not offending anyone.

America is crying out for change. It needs change.

If American does not grab hold of this movement, it is going to die.

The "old boys/girls" network is going to strangle it from all that it can be.

We've had Bill and Hillary Clinton. I don't care if all the rich, famous and undercover agents give them a billion dollars to win this election.

At this particular time in our history. They are wrong for America.

Remember what happened to Lot's wife.

Don't look back, America.

"America our movement is now."

You know, I like Obama. He's stylish, urbane, witty and intelligent. He is a privilege child - a Cinderella story as the above article defines. Oh, I would say that many would disagree with my statement - but the fact is Obama managed to avoid the necessity of being black in America. He was able to skip out on qualities such as perseverance, determination, a belief of principle, and the art of living that principle. He took as much discrimination as my neighbor who is white. He is an intellectual African American who lived in an elite world, the ivory tower or upper middle class. That is what concerns me.
Although I regret to say, I did not walk with Dr. King in Selma. I walked in Berwyn and Cicero, the cities just outside of Chi-Town (Chicago), amongst white hostiles who reviled us and pelted us with dung and urine. I saw the hearts of bigots and racists, and I know that our nation is still populated with such ideology. I was young, and a teacher trying to teach in the inner city with history books whose final copyright was 1933. Apparently history ended with Hoover on the South Side of the city. We mimeographed pages that brought current events to our students. Earlier, I worked in the school during the race riots of 1967, and often dodged a bullet either from a white man or a black man. I walked through a city with military presence and smelt the burning of human flesh, or the shrieks of drunk men, angry men, both black and white, among the background of guns and flaming gas filled bottles. I worked with others, both black and white, to end the Jim Crow laws, and watched black men go off to war in Viet Nam.
At that time, Obama was a pubescent adolescent in Hawaii, Kenya and Indonesia - raised predominately white - with a father who only knew acceptance for the color of his skin - not rejection. Obama doesn't recognize the hate of discrimination - he's never had to face it - thus he rationalizes and theorizes upon it. We all have felt discriminated at times in our lives, all of us whether we are black, white, red, yellow, or brown. Obama is the product of what we wanted to see - urbane, cultured, intelligent and savvy, oddly enough he benefited from the gift of our determination. Yet even today he resides in his ivory tower, and rarely ventures far from his world of acceptance.
Obama is not a brave man, usually ambitious people aren't. When criticized he runs toward others - like Oprah, or Bill Cosby, or even Sen. Durbin. In his speeches I hear the words of a great man, Sen Paul Douglas, a big man with even a bigger wiser heart, snowy hair with twinkling blue eyes that saw beneath the sham and the tawdry and moved this country together - not apart. and who stood in Congress and shamed the members for their bias and discrimination. It is no wonder that the late Sen Douglas was awarded the Conscience of Congress. Yet, oddly enough, I hear too much of Paul Douglas's words issued out of Obama's mouth, and not enough of Obama words - Obama does that - lifts the words of hope off of other people and shifts it a bit and sends it out into the crowd who wolf it up. Yet the bare facts - it is not his words - it is plagiarized. More than that, it is deceitful because it is not the real heart of Obama.
The real heart of Obama is an ambitious intellectual. Therein is his flaw. I think of Obama sitting in the Oval office, and it is not nice. He has not been tempered by life's challenges, he has been indulged by life's benefits. To me, a man, or woman, must have tempered steel that forms his backbone. Obama's backbone is made of plastic. Worse yet, the media do not challenge him - they fear the race card. It is what Obama has avoided all his life - the challenges. It is what he needs in the coming years - experience - then it will be time to run for president, but not now.

"Can Paul win? No. Can he impact the race? Yes."

Does Chris Cillizza have a brain? No. Can he write yellow journalism against Ron Paul? Yes.

Why cant the military industrial complex owned media EVER, EVERY give Ron 100% credit. Everything the MSM says is Ron's Big, but he cant win.

HE MUST WIN. HE WILL WIN. Every un-rigged poll he wins. every indication I have he will win, but the MSM still tries to suppress Ron Paul.

Hello, Main Stream Media, You there? We aren't watching or listening anymore and we go to the net for many Points of View, we aren't being programmed like little robots anymore.

RON PAUL = freedom. No Ron Paul = no liberty, no freedom, perpetual war, being paid in FAKE MONEY, etc.

Senator Obama has momentum going into the final stage of the run-up to the Iowa caucus. He is making the race vibrate as his following grows across Iowa and will keep growing across the country during 2008. The people who understand the issues are beginning to recognize Obama's professional ability and average voters must then choose between him and the same old tired messages of his opponents. His refreshing honesty and integrity are immovable objects that the rest of the democratic field can not budge. I like his chances for taking 2/3 or 3/4 of the primary races into May. It should be all over but the shoutin' before Indiana shows its true colors. This reminds me of 1960. Dave in Indiana

I don't believe that Iowans will bolt from Obama in the closing days before the January caucus because they recognize his political purity and genuine foundation. He is redefining presidential campaign rhetoric with his emphasis on questioning the status quo and politics as usual. His real opponent is not HRC but American reluctance to change. So "change" is the operative word for Obama. Iowans are not stuck in the prairie mud and will deliver a resounding victory for the best voice of democracy since John Kennedy captured the national spirit of progress in 1960. Dave in Indiana

P G: Looking at my Electoral College states, I have Ohio as going to Hillary, and in my judgement Obama could not win Ohio. Lets assume I am correct for a second, and think of where Obama could win anywhere else that Kerry didn't in 04 to make these 20 EC votes up is beyond me. The Repubs are in a pickle at the present time, and I think Mike Huckabee is going to be hard to beat once McCain drops out and supports him.

Ron Paul should be at the top of this list. Check the Straw Poll results. His support is massive and hes has won a majority of all votes and polls.

Thank you for at least including him.

Ron Paul's Straw Poll Results
Updated on December 7, 2007
Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):

Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani 39-7-0
Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney 30-16-0
Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson 30-15-0
Ron Paul v. John McCain 40-5-0
Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee 38-6-1
Ron Paul v. Tom Tancredo 43-1-0
Ron Paul v. Duncan Hunter 42-2-0

OK. First off, racism is not just an issue in the South. We need to get over the idea that racism only exists in the old Confederacy.

Secondly, a Dem is not likely to win in a state where racism is a big strike against Obama, ESPECIALLY if HRC is the nominee.

Third, the Dems don't need to win a single state in the south to win the White House. All we need to do is pick up Ohio and maintain the states that Kerry won (and given the snoozer Kerry was as a candidate and the ongoing blow-ups in the WH, that shouldn't be hard). With the growth in the Western states (CO, NV, NM, AZ) the south is losing its relevance.

Fouth: Ron Paul's movement is limited to a relatively small (but very dedicated and vocal) base of Libertarians and libetarian-minded Repubs, period. Beyond that, he has very little appeal, particularly when people get a good look at what he really stands for (i.e. they get beyond the fact that he is a Repub who is against the occupation in Iraq) and what his voting record is, he'll loose many of the independents and conservative Dems.

Fifth, I don't think there is any way Rudy is going to win the Repub nomination. If he does, it will be becasue the Christian Conservatives split their votes between Huckabee and McCain. If that happens, look for a 3rd party candidate who speaks for/panders to the far right wing Christian Conservatives.

Sixth: The only reason I can see putting HRC first is her position in the national polls. But given the fact that the nominee is not chosen on a nation-wide basis AND the fact that HRC has been steadily sliding in the "national polls", I find even this rationale hard to buy into. In the states where people have had the opportunity to get to know the candidates (ie tv commercials, candidate rallys, town hall meetings, etc), HRC is either in a three way tie with Obama and Edwards or seeing a steady deterioration of her lead over Obama and Edwards...not such a great showing for someone who has been in the media spotlight for the last 15 years, especially with less than a month to go until the Iowa caucus.

My bet is that on the Repub side, you'll see Huckabee take Iowa and leave Romney with not much to show for his shopping spree. Huckabee will take that into NH and from there, he'll have good momentum to carry him into the Evangelical land of the south. Once Evangelicals see he can win something, they'll fight to get in line behind him.

I can't really speak for the Dem side because I am a strong supporter of Obama, so I'll just say I believe he will be the nominee.

PG

Obama will face racism, but just as there are some people out there who won't vote for him because he's black, there are others who won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman. I don't think that will stop him from getting the nomination if he stays the course. He's done a good job so far of marginalizing the race issue. It's the media that keeps obsessing about whether he's not black enough for blacks or too black for whites.

Even Rev. Jackson won the south when he ran 20 years ago and at that time he definitely put the race issue front and center. Obama seems much more popular today (in a cross-cultural way) than Rev. Jackson was then, so I think he'll do fine in the south (the black vote will help him). He won't take every state, but I think he'll do fine.

No matter what anyone says, all African Americans are looking for is proof that he can win to throw behind him. They loved him when he went to Harlem and South Carolina; it's just that Hillary has been a well known figure on the national scene for 2 decades and blacks love Billo, so Hillary's benefiting somewhat from their fondness for Bill. Up until this year, Obama wasn't that well known outside of Illinois so it's a familiarity issue, not lack of support. At the same time, blacks want to know what he's about before they give him their vote - just like everyone else. Besides, the fact is that the black vote alone can't put Obama in the white house. He has to have a crossover appeal to make it, and I think he definitely does.

cam8: The comment/post after yours by JM is what I like to see, everyone getting involved and supporting their choice. Naturally, I believe Hillary will win. I haven't paid that much attention to Ron Paul as evidenced by my being off in the ranking of the poll I went back and found. I am very skeptical of polls, but find the "Internals", when available, a much better indicator than the published numbers. A big problem is very few publish the questions asked. and how often is the order of the questions changed. This does have a big effect on the outcome. I try and find as many as I can and figure out what were the top news stories during the time they were taken to give ne a better idea of what were on folks minds at the time.

Ron Paul has my vote. He is the only man on this list with a 20+ year record of always telling the truth and always supporting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. There is only one choice this year: Ron Paul. Just Google "Ron Paul 2008"!

The revolution is here; vote for Dr. No in 2008!

Ron Paul '08

With all due respect, you're making the mistake that national polls are the same thing as state election results. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our primaries are done state-by-state, and different candidates have different strengths in different states.
The only state I have a good handle on is NH, and I've lived here all my life, having been involved in politics here since I was a little kid in '79 trying to get people to vote for Reagan.

Some things you need to understand about our little state:

We are extremely independent - What Iowa does has little effect on our decision making. Witness Bill Clinton in '92 going from 5th place in Iowa to 2nd place in NH and on to the Presidency.

We are VERY independent of the two major parties. 44% of us (myself included) are registered Independent, which is a larger voting block than either Party, and it is the Independents that decide every election here. Every one.

The idea of Rudy taking NH is laughable - He is, quite frankly, not trusted here. I'm not saying that based on a few samples, or just my friends and family. This is something I have been hearing from EVERYONE I talk to in NH about politics (and being in NH, we talk about politics a lot - we have two elections a year here).

On the contrary, the Independents in this state are only going two ways - to Obama and to Ron Paul. Both of them are going to finish NH much higher than you expect - mark my words.

Now, I have a degree in physics and chemistry, and being the science geek that I am, I decided to run an unbiased experiment this weekend in the state.
I rode 80 mailes around south-western and south-central NH, with a paper and pen, carefully marking down who had how many signs up and how they were placed.
The results were that there were around 40 signs up for Paul, beating the second-place Mitt Romney, who had 12. Rudy had 4.
Here's the amazing bit: about 35 of the 40 signs for Paul were on people's lawns and property. That was only true for 4 of Mitt's tweleve signs, and only one for Rudy.
I've also seen anecdotal evidence in that nearly everyone I talk to, strangers or friends I haven't seen in months or years, knows Ron Paul, and nearly all are supporting him - even the most liberal people I have ever known. Those who aren't are nearly all going to Obama.
I wouldn't count on either one of them doing poorly in this state if I were you. The state's Republican chairman predicts a top-three finish in NH for Paul, and as was said on a state-wide political TV show (Political Chowder) a little while back:
"Either Ron Paul is the name of a realtor with a WHOLE LOT of properties for sale in NH, or..."

JM

lyle:

I agree that Sen. Obama will have to deal with racism in the south, though I'm not sure that Sen. Clinton will have an easier time there in the general either. Where I think her problem will be is changing public perception of her persona, which adds another bump in the road that Obama doesn't have to deal with. He's got a rock-solid 20-point favorable/unfavorable spread, while hers dips and dives and usually hovers around 50-50 or worse. Unless she can find a way to push past that, her lead in the polls is precarious at best.

Email me. I'm serious Chris. $1,000 on Ron Paul breaking 10% in Iowa.

I would put a thousand dollars on the line with you that Ron Paul will get over 10% in Iowa. Easy money.

It's ironic that Obama needs to fake a movement (A movement for what? Hope?) whereas Paul has already built a movement. A movement with a blimp.

Good work realizing that Ron Paul is a top-five contender, but why jump to the conclusion that he can't win? He has far more volunteers than the other candidates, and will have enough money to campaign through February 5th at least.

10% in Iowa? He's polling at 5% already, and could get a substantial multiplier effect thanks to the low turnout in the caucuses for the other candidates, and a very motivated and well organized base.

I think it's Giuliani who really has no chance to win. He has no visible support anywhere except in large donations from wealthy people who thought he was the front runner, and random telephone survey responses from people who didn't know much about the candidates yet. I just don't see that kind of "support" translating into votes.

I just want to thank The Washington Post for allowing me to post my comment, forgot to earlier. Also, I wanted to add the actual blind poll results that were taken by 1009 individuals posted at Zogby.com last month. This poll included Republicans, Dems, and Independents, and the results clearly show that no matter what party affiliation the majority of these people agreed with Ron Paul. These are the actual results, and unfortunately not widely publicized by the media as I have stated in a previous post. The results are as follows:

The blind bio question was also posed to a larger pool of 1,009 likely voters nationwide, including Democrats and independents, and Paul was the big winner among that universe of voters, winning 33%, compared to 19% for Giuliani, 15% for Romney, and 13% for Thompson.

Thank you Washington Post.

Obama wants to commit 100,000 additional troops to the Middle East. He also wants to make public service a requirement. Sounds like a draft to me, since demanding public service in all other forms has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional.

Non retards of the world unite!!!!!!

Throw out the warmongers. If your a democrat vote for Obama, if your a republican vote for Paul. Don't worry if most of America is drooling out the mouth staring at the crime and war on the telescreen, if you show up in large enough numbers it'll happen.

FYI: The poll I referred to earlier can be found at WSAZ.COM Sorry, I forget when I had seen it, but had it written down.

I live in NH.
Here are my biased predictions.
1. Ron Paul's limited government is popular in NH. His current bill to make all tips tax free is very popular at the local restraunts I have been attending. He has signs everywhere. The nh liberty forum is before the primary and there will be hundreds of volunteers campaigning for him.

2. Mitt Romney he was elected govenor in the most socialized State in the union. I have seen one sign supporting him and another painted with graffiti attacking his fascist style health care initiative he supported as Govenor of Mass.

3. Huckabee has a supposed strong surge in the polls. People have not been made aware of his corruption in Arkansas yet. Hillary will destroy him with stories about paroling rapists and the wedding registry three years after his marriage that was flooded with expensive gifts (bribes).

4/5 Mcain Guliani there are no signs although the Republican apparatus is supporting them. The add with Mcain trumpeting a tax and trade scheme on CO2 will kill him if immigration already hasn't. Guliani is also supporting this scheme to help save the planet (ha Ha).

scan4: Hillary 34.5-Rudy 17.2-Ron Paul 13.8-Mike 10.3-Edwards & Thompson 6.9-Biden, Obama, and Mitt 3.4--All the others were at 0.0%. Hope this gives you an idea of how things look here in WV. The big suprise was McCain, with no support.

If the Republicans want a Republican in office next year, they should all be rooting for Ron Paul. After what we have been through with the Bush Administration, do you honestly think America is going to vote in another Republican Bush wannabee like the so called big government, big spending frontrunners, (Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney), I think not. I did not include McCain because I think he would do well in charge of the Department of Defense, but has no clue on economics and finance issues. Thompson is pretty much out of the race. RON PAUL is the only candidate that will make the changes necessary for our country's economic/financial future, illegal immigration problems but most importantly he will start with bringing our troops and military home period. Please look into RON PAUL, and don't believe all the untruths that are written, Ron Paul is not treated fairly even now by the media. Do the research on Ron Paul, look at his site, http://RonPaul2008.com. If you are a Republican and DO NOT want a Democrat in office, Ron Paul is the only candidate running as a Republican that will beat any democrat that is running for President. I am not making this up, this information can be found on a blind Zogby Poll report, which by the way did not make any headlines, as quite a few of the other polls that were taken and Ron Paul was the clear Frontrunner. Ron Paul has won more straw polls than any other Republican candidate. Don't take my word, please do some research, inform yourselves before you go to the voting booth, and please don't vote for a candidate just because you know his name or saw his face in the newspaper. Please America, lets do something right for our Country and the Citizens of the United States when we vote for our next Leader. My choice will be Ron Paul, he has my vote and support.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win

There will be juat one leader out there who will be able to restore law and order, who will restore the constitution, give the people their freedom and prosperity back:

www.ronpaul2008.com

scan4: BTW, I posted a poll a few days ago about how all of the canditates ranked and I think Ron Paul came in 5th or 6th. I'll look for it and let you know if I find it.

I'll bite. I'm tired of commentators ending every bit about Paul with "of course he can't win". It's like Republican Senators saying "I'm not gay". In other words: wishful thinking.

We're still at the point where news shows feel comfortable excluding Ron Paul in their coverage (mysteriously announcing 1st-3rd and then 5th-last in polls where he finishes 4th). The blimp will change that. Add in 1000 boots on the ground in New Hampshire and Iowa in the coming weeks and finishing among the top 3 fundraisers for the quarter, and Paul could see a meteoric rise.

I'll bet anything Chris was shaking when he put Ron Paul on The Line.

Or course there were qualifiers, like "I'll be really suprised if he cracks 10 percent in Iowa" or this good one, "Can he win? No." But considering that it took months before Chris had to be dragged, kicking and screaming of course, to put Paul on The Line, I'll take those as compliments.

But for people with open minds about Paul's chances (unlike Chris) consider the following: 1). An on-the-ground survey by the Iowa political blog Iowa Independent considers Paul a good bet to finish at least third in the caucus and 2). Paul finished first among candidates with committed delegates to the West Virginia State GOP Convention on Feb. 5 which will select 21 of the states 30 delegates to the GOP Convention.

Blimps are one thing but so are results and so far Paul has earned his way onto The Line and beyond.

The past few elections have challenged the credibility of political pundits and their polls.
I hope Americans are not sheep to the opinions of these political pundits and poll results. We need to vote for whom we belive; vote our hearts and minds. The approval ratings of the President and Congress show that politics as usual is no longer acceptable. The institution needs to be shaken up. All the candidates, less one, will lead us down the same path of dissatisfaction. Oddly enough the one candidate who is different is the one labeled as "unelectable".

Why do you calll Biden a "dark horse", yet basically refer to Paul as unelectable?

Paul has a more realistic shot at winning than Biden (money, support, etc). Yes it's a long road and many things have to fall in to place...but it can happen. I'm not asking journalists to gush over Paul...but please treat all candidates with the same amount of respect.

I wish that the political pundits (including blogsters and columnist!)could see fit to STOP covering elections as though they were sporting contests. AL versus NL in the World Series at the end of the day means nothing. "Baby Shoes" placing 2nd at The Belmont at the end of the day means nothing. These 'events' are largely for entertainment. They mean nothing in the ocurse of our real lives. Presidential elections DO mena something, even if your a moron who cares more about the NL v AL than the NSA and the CIA becuase even if YOU choose to hide your head in the sand you are stilll affected by who is elected.

Maybe the press, including Mr. Fix-It could see their way to stop ranking candidates like movies or college football teams and provide some insight and analysis on the substance of the candidates' poaitions. Enough with the BS handicapping.

Everyone should see this video.The Mainstream press is not reporting this very important revelation.
http://www.vloggingtheapocalypse.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=418&title=OLBERMANN__GIULIANI_TIED_TO_TERRORIST_GROUP

cam8: I pretty much agree with you about the sexism about Hillary, and the learning expierence of Hillary Care should be a plus, the Iraq and Iran votes, if memory serves, were hugely Bi-Partisan and passed with a pretty good margin, so I don't think that will play in the General as it is in the primary. The racism thing would play a huge role against Obama, especially in the south where the dems need help, BTW, I did have only Fla. and Va in my early Electoral count. Edwards seldom comes up with anyone.

Hillary Clinton was a radical marxist in the 60s and she is still a marxist.

Barack Obama is a socialist but very personable.

John Edwards is a worse socialist and an elitist. Nice hair though.

Richardson is a failure as a Governor with his state coming in at the 47th to 50th state on alot of issues. If he can't manage his state, how's he going to manage the country?

Biden is a professional politician. He has only a kingdom in the Senate and has a problem with brain/mouth coordination.

Dodd is also a professional politician. No chance.

Kucinich. Beam him up Scotty.

The best bet for Democrats is to nominate Obama. At least he comes forward without the baggage, except for the drugs and alcohol, and he can talk the talk.
~~~
Guilanni has a problem in that the Clinton's have so much on him that it will make Bill Clinton look like the Pope.

Romney, despite the Freedom of Religion in the 1st Amendment, will be judged being unfit because he's a mormon.

Thompson needs a nap.

Paul is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

McCain is a RINO and Republicans are not going to support him because of the Immigration issue.

Huckabee is a compassionate conservative. We've already had that and that's not going to be a winner for him.

Tancredo is a one-issue candidate. That's not good enough.

Duncan Hunter is one of two real conservatives in the pack of repubs. Thompson being the other. He doesn't get the press so he doesn't get the money.

The best bet for the Republicans is to nominate ???

I do not want a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton and I wouldn't vote for her because she's a woman. I just hope people look at the candidate and what they really want. If you want bigger Government, more taxes, a loss of rights, a loss of sovereignty, a new majority being Mexican, Spanish as the National Language, more Government entitlement programs than the U.S. could ever afford and eventual Global Socialism, then by all means vote Democrat. Just remember..you get what you wish for.

Many of us are really tired of the press -- in their usual lazy way -- talking only of Clinton and Obama, which has allowed Obama to make a good attempt of taking over all the positions of John Edwards. The REAL candidate of CHANGE is John Edwards. Everything Obama says is straight from the very words and phrases John Edwards has been saying for many, many months. (Of course his "handlers" have worked for Edwards in the past, and are working from their knowledge of this smart, courageous man.) Let's face it: Oprah Winfrey has never supported, much less endorsed a candidate before. Could the fact that he is black have anything to do with it? And Bill Clinton wants to see his wife elected. So where does that leaves the best candidate -- John Edwards? You would think the media would have the decency as Americans to make this a fair race. But no. It is just too easy to play the game of the horserace between the woman (and wife of a superstar ex-President) and the black candidate who has the support of a black superstar, and neglect the other candidates. Especially the one who, all the matchup polls show is the most electable. We may wind up with Hillary or Obama as the nominee. But neither one will win the general election, and we'll have a Republican in the White House for another four or eight years when we could have had a visionary, strong, smart Democrat in the White House. Because John Edwards is the one Democrat who could have gotten elected. What a truly sad state of affairs. But I still hold out hope that the people of Iowa will not be swayed by the superstars, but rather do what is best for America.

lyle,

I would tend to agree with you, but I reserve judgment on referring to this hatred being due to envy or jealousy. Other than sexism (which I definitely think is there) most of the people who hate Sen. Clinton hate her for the same reasons that many hate George W. Bush. They hate her because they're not sure she can be trusted. She's made some questionable decisions (HillaryCare, the Iran & Iraq votes) and shown a limited amout of candor in admitting mistakes.

Whether or not these are constructs of right-wing pundits or not (and some of it is, to be sure) is of limited relevance; they exist. And they are a large part of the force that keeps her unfavorability ratings above 50%. It can and ultimately will damage her electability in the general.

Can she overcome it? I would say so, but I think her hill is going to be a harder one to surmount than the one that an Obama or Edwards would face. Once public perception is hardened, it's supremely difficult to change.

LV : That pretty well fits into my category of the "Envy/Jealous" Factor I mention a lot. You are rite on about Bubba. A whole bunch of southern white males still want to keep women pregnant in the summer and barefoot in the winter. Another thing I find is the more education women have are among those that fall into this category about Hillary. urban4: Folks may disagree with her and refer to it as "Negatives" as you do, but that is far different from the visural hatred showed by so many towards The Clintons.

This country needs Obama, not Clinton II. I hate that fact that there seems to be a coronation in process. Don't get me wrong, I still love Bill but we do not need Hillary and we do not need politics as usual. Obama has so much offer; Hillary is over.

dyck21005 clearly only gets his news on the Clinton News Network, and ignores the congressional record, the statements from Planned Parenthood that this was a joined strategy to vote "present" on the abortion votes,...I worry that people don't do their OWN research!

I started out as a Clinton supporter. I am a very strong feminist, and it looked natural at first. But then ethics and her lack of true feminism got in the way. I did a thorough investigation of ALL the candidates on the Democratic ticket, and a couple on the Republican side (hey, I'm an Independent voter) that I thought warranted a second look. I read everything I could find.

Obama won my endorsement, and my support, after hours of research and reading. Now I suggest all of you do the same, and not trust the main stream media, owned by Rupert Murdoch (who donates to HRC and the Republicans) and about 6 other corporations. If we want to know what is REALLY going on, we have to read about it in the congressional record, and in independently owned media. We need transparency in government, and we need to reduce corporate lobbying, at least to an 'even' level with the rest of us. Senator Obama is the man with the balance, judgment, integrity, tenacity, and intelligence to get it done.

Joe is right! Joe Biden has the sharpest mind and the best platform. www.JoeBiden.com

michael,

I would agree that Sen. McCain is the most electable Republican in the field, except that he'd be 72 when he took the oath on January 20, 2009. As healthy as he might be right now, that's still pretty old. And I don't think that 5 1/2 years as a POW did a lot for his life expectancy. A lot of the 40 and over voters that remember Reagan being in the early stages of Alzheimer's during his second term are going to think twice about voting for someone who'd be about two years older than Reagan was when he took office.

By the way, that balk would be similar for Ron Paul as well. In fact, he's a little older than McCain.

All Obama, or any of the other candidates with an actual chance of winning has to do is follow the dictates of the American people. F#$CK parties, just listen to the people. Do whatever we need to get out of Iraq, help the middle class, secure the borders and stop spying on Americans. That' all he has to do.

McCain is by far the most electable Republican in the field. He's got the experience, especially in foreign policy, and is a straight talker on the issues. If the Republicans don't get serious and support a McCain/Huckabee ticket, they may as well vote for Hillary, because that is what will happen.

Oprah will bring them Barack will give them

BARACK OBAMA'S ANSWERS Top Priorities, Iraq war, SecurIty, Health care, Education, Gay Marriage, Abortion, Poor, Guns, Stem Cell Research, Energy, Affirmative Action, Budget Issues, Social Security

BARACK OBAMA'S ANSWERS as found on
choose your candidate washington post

CHOOSE YOUR CANDIDATE

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/candidatequiz/?

BARACK OBAMA SAYS:

TOP PRIORITIES:
My top priority as president will be ending this war
in Iraq, a war that should have never been authorized
and never been waged. In doing so, I will work to keep
our country safe from terrorists and to restore
American credibility around the world. Providing
universal health care to the 47 million Americans who
currently do not have it will be another top priority
of my administration, as will combating global warming
and putting our country on the path toward energy
independence. But all of the issues that I have
focused on in this campaign -- whether it's creating a
21st century education system and fighting poverty or
achieving comprehensive immigration reform and
strengthening our economy -- are vitally important and
must be prioritized by the next president. And all of
these issues share one thing in common: in order to
fully address them, we have to do more than change
political parties. We have to fundamentally change our
politics and transform the way business is done in
Washington.

IRAQ WAR: 1
IRAQ WAR: 2

SECURITY:

HEALTH CARE

EDUCATION:
CHANGES IN EDUCATION:

GAY MARRIAGE:
CIVIL UNIONS:

ABORTION:

POOR:

GUNS:
GUN CONTROL:

STEM CELL RESEARCH:

ENERGY: 1
ENERGY: 2

IMMIGRATION: 1
IMMIGRATION: 2

AFFIRMIATIVE ACTION:

BUDGET ISSUES: 1
BUDGET ISSUES: 2

ECONOMY: 1
ECONOMY 2:

SOCIAL SECURITY: 1
SOCIAL SECURITY: 2

CLICK READ MORE TO SEE ALL THE ANSWERS BARACK HAS LISTED AT THIS WASHINGTON POST POLL SITE. I THINK IT GIVES AN EASY READ TO HIS PERSPECTIVES.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/danielleclarke/C5Ph

Lyle and Loudoun,
There are of course "Hillary haters". There is also another segment of the voting public (probably larger but not as vocal) that thinks that her negatives outweigh her positives or simply she is not the best candidate. They are not too emotional about it but will be unlikely to vote for her. Several of the bloggers here have made their point fairly objectively for why they are reluctant to vote for her.

lyle:

For Bill, it's seeing a member of the southern white trash class rise above his expected station in life -- and also getting far more poontang than any one man has a right to.

For Hillary, it's because she scares them. They don't know how to deal with a female like her. Women like Coulter et ux are acceptable because despite their intelligence, etc they still accept their status as inferior to men.

I have yet to find an answer to my question of why the "Hillary Haters" Hate her so much. There is no logical reason I have heard yet. Yes!! I do understand there is logic to HATE under extreme conditions, such as someone hurting you personally, or a family member, and yet I find this coming from folks that claim to be "Christian" and believe in the teachings of the Bible, that are directly against/opposite to The King James version I read.

Generally, I agree with CC's analysis on the Republican side. I differ on the Democratic side. Based on no new statistical evidence and only reasonable deduction, I believe Edwards' campaign is slipping and ultimately will be disappointed on Jan. 3.
Seemingly, Edwards' support has topped out and has nowhere else to go but down. His polling has been within the same range (20%-26%) in Iowa for the last two years. The extra time he has spent in Iowa and prominent campaign structure he has in place has not effected his position in the polls.
In addition, Edwards' main problem is Barack Obama - not Hillary Clinton. Edwards and Obama occupy the same position in this race. They both are "change" candidates with relatively little political experience. Presumably, Obama is taking voters that would normally would have voted for Edwards. Obama represents Edwards' biggest obstacle to a successful Iowa caucus.
Finally, Edwards' campaign has two other significant problems. First, Edwards campaign resources are drying up. He has not done as well as he has in the past with regard to fundraising. Second, his message has become tarnished. Clinton has aptly been able to paint Edwards as a mudslinger because he has gone negative. Mudslinging has commonly been associated with beltway/insider politics. Edwards has consistently said that he is running against the traditional way our political system operates. Yet, this is where the contradiction lies. Edwards' seemingly negative tactics is endemic of traditional politics. This confirms that Edwards will say and do whatever it takes to get elected. That is not very genuine and my guess is Iowa voters are smart enough to realize it.
I do believe that CC is right that Joe Biden is a dark horse candidate. He is good on the stump and has been converting caucus goers and winning endorsements from Iowa locals. Biden has also performed remarkably well in the debates and his numerous detailed policy releases have casted him as a candidate of action. I believe Iowa voters will take heed. Below is the way I see Iowa shaping up on Jan. 3rd.
1) Hillary Clinton (28%)
2) Barack Obama (26%)
3) Joe Biden (21%)

**Edwards and Richardson drop out of the race Jan. 4th. Richardson endorses Clinton and Edwards endorses Obama.

Chris Cillizza, once again, is beating the drum of HIllary's inevitablity with these crazy statements about her "electability."

Want something that will open your eyes? Read the Rasmussen daily tracking polls. check out the head-to-head match up. Obama beats all GOP contenders save one and there he is in a tie.

But more important to remember is that ANY candidate is unelectable if you don't vote for them, and electable when you do.

Chris keeps trying to find a way for conventional wisdom and what he learned in political science class to the real world. Hillary's negatives will be coming back to haunt her. When the so-called broad base support Clinton has, remembers "Clinton fatigue" and that it was having run away from the Clintons that did the real damage to Al Gore in 2000, her broad but thin support will evaporate like an ice cube on hot pavement in summertime.

Barack Obama on the other hand, doesn't need to re-frame or re-cast his campaign as a movement. It already is. (Chris, you just weren't paying attention.)

Get on the bus! OBAMA '08!

"And if you think it's rediculous for me to call the Clintons mob bosses and murderers, it should also be equally rediculous to talk about Bush-Cheney as "war criminals" and demand impeachment - no?"

No. There are legitimate charges that have been raised against Bush and Cheney, specific reasons why they should be impeached. For instance, warrantless wiretapping. You might disagree that spying on US citizens without a warrant is an offense worthy of impeachment. But it's a fact that the program existed. Calling for an impeachment trial over the existence of that program is legitimate, whether or not you think it should result in impeachment.

That's very different from calling former president Clinton a mob boss or murderer. Those charges are just slanders, based on vague rumors or charges that have been repeatedly found false in court. There are criticisms of Bush and Cheney which are comparable to calling Bill Clinton a murderer, such as claiming that they were behind 9/11. But there's legitimate evidence backing up the calls for impeachment; it's not the same at all.

'I'm talking about calling the troops terrorists, saying they're "bombing villages and killing innocents", that they've killed "Six-Hundred-Thousand Iraqi Civilians", etc. etc. etc.'

I know you''re too young to remember Vietnam, but I had friends who came back and told me what they had done... and it included killing civilains, even chldren. It made them sick for the rest of their lives, I'm sure. We were too quick to demonize them, although some, like Lt. Calley, were methodical and devilish about it.

But most were simply like our troops now -- and like all insurgent warfare -- you simply don't know who your enemy is -- a kid coud have a bomb. There are always atrocities in wartime, it's what war is. I can't abide calling soldiers 'terrorists' but yes, certainly they are bombing villages and killing children. Not purposefully, but that's what happens in wars.

That's why they should be a desperate last resort, instead of a way of life.

"And if you think it's rediculous for me to call the Clintons mob bosses and murderers, it should also be equally rediculous to talk about Bush-Cheney as "war criminals" and demand impeachment - no?"

it just shows that you're as immature as any shrill lefty. You should be proud of yourself for achieving such greatness. Great job, devildog.

Obama's senator record shows America exactly what he will be as President, absent. After listing to him and reading his material on various positions like the economy, social security, immigration,etc.. he has a lot to learn how to develop and manage a budget. Obama is not qualified and his platforms has huge funding gaps. Having Oprah campaign for him isn't saying much. She is more focus on building schools in South Africa than rebuilding New Orleans schools. I sure hope people do not waste their vote for Obama for it will be a definite win for the republicans in 2008

I'm not saying everyone should support the war. Someone said supporting an immoral war would be anti-patriotic -- I think that passes muster.

And you're right, you can support the troops without supporting the President.

I'm talking about calling the troops terrorists, saying they're "bombing villages and killing innocents", that they've killed "Six-Hundred-Thousand Iraqi Civilians", etc. etc. etc.

We do have the freedom to critique war, and we have a duty to do so. But all I'm saying is there should be a line we don't cross.

And if you think it's rediculous for me to call the Clintons mob bosses and murderers, it should also be equally rediculous to talk about Bush-Cheney as "war criminals" and demand impeachment - no?

OBAMA/GORE in '08

They can't lose.

-----EDWARDS/RICHARDSON TO WIN----- CLINTON SLEAZE FATIGUE WILL INVIGORATE GOP, DISPIRIT DEMOCRATS AND SINK DEMOCRATIC TICKET-----
It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate. However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.

dmcc: "Accuse your opponent of doing what you are doing, [and in that way] [so] you will know what you are doing". Sound Familiar??

"Having been born when the president was Eisenhower, I feel very old."

- LOL! LoudonVoter, I was born when FDR was president, so you can appreciate how old I must feel. Moreover, I DO remember Pearl Harbor (I'm just glad I don't quite remember the Alamo~).

I liked Ike. I was young in the 50's and I voted for him - twice. But he is the only Republican candidate for president who ever got my vote, and he is likely to be the last. If you are the least bit curious as to why, just consider what is heard from the "right side of the aisle" here on this blog.

How is Biden below Richardson? He's the one that is turning heads in Iowa.

The more and more people realize that national security is a huge issue, the more and more people turn their heads at Biden. He's the only one with knowledge in the field, and he's the only one who is realistic. He knows how to handle foreign policy.

Biden/Obama '08!

dmcc -- don't bother -- i don't think zouk is a human, i think he's a program. a very buggy and deficient one of course, but there's no brain or humanity there. no 'there' there...

Hey, Zoukie: You bloviate about "hate", yet that's what appears to underlie and impel every remark you make about the "Libs", as well as anyone here who challenges anything you say. You talk about facing "facts", yet you rarely if ever offer facts to support your opinions. You accuse your perceived enemies of exactly what you yourself do. Do you expect people to accept the slander of people you don't like as valid criticism because you say it is?

Here's a fact for you: Your belligerent, obnoxious style might appeal to the Limbaugh/Savage mentality, but it marks you as someone not to be taken seriously in any forum where reality-based thought is respected.

Go back to the island now, and ask your magic mirror who's the biggest hypocritical hater in all the land...

'Remember today is December 7th. I have not seen or heard anything from the media about this Historic day.'

i know... i was talking about this to a friend today. i mean we don't have to obssess, just as a sign of respect, some mention would bbe nice.

'drindl - your statements are so ugly and outrageous, they should not be allowed to stand'

ROFLOL -- hilarious, coming frm you, whose only life and purpose is to attack people in the lowest, ugliest and vicious fashion.

And really, please try to stop thinking and obsessing so much about me. It's like having a stalker. You definitely need to get out of the bssement more, have a social life, meet a nice girl... or boy.

Or get a shrink.

Remember today is December 7th. I have not seen or heard anything from the media about this Historic day.

Colin: Think about this: There are already many millions of Americans who were not born when the president was not named Bush or Clinton.

Having been born when the president was Eisenhower, I feel very old.

Though I did not even get half way through this blog, I want to thank nhudson35, lylepink, and topicalfolk for echoing my overall sentiments. I honestly do not want Hillary as a candidate because she is the most vulnerable to the republicans. I do not want her as president because would certainly not be strong like Margaret Thatcher.

My favorite is Richardson and my second favorite is Obama. Obama does give me a sense of youthful renewal, class, and moving on that evoke memories of JFK.

I plead with my fellow Americans from all walks of life not to elect a republican because it would complete the "Waterloo" process of the United States as a great nation. If Hillary is elected president, I see moving on and leaving this period (1988-2008) behind happening like a slow-motion camera. If she does wind up as the candidate, I will vote for her just to avoid voting for a republican.

Obama probably has the better chance than Richardson to get the nomination. I also think that an Obama-Richardson ticket would be the best possible ticket, IMHO, that the Democrats could field. Their job would be to pick up the pieces of what is left of our great nation (put Habeas Corpus back together again and not leave it lying on the floor as if it were Humpty Dumpty) internally, and restoring our leadership in foreign affairs. Our nation is in shreds and it has to be healed.

All this business of manipulated religion, anti-gay, anti-immigrants, etc. used by the right us pure,unadulterated hogwash used by the right to divide our nation. We have to come together as a people and individually give that extra effort, just like in sports in the waning minutes of a hardly fought game, to heal our country. George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, et al are the Benedict Arnolds of today. They should all be tried for and convicted of treason and, thus, be shot by a firing squad or at least spend the rest of their days in a Federal Prison. A George W. Bush presidential library would be a "tsunami-sized" source of shame for the American people.

We the American people deserve much better, so we had better buckle down and work "overtime" for it. As a society, we have to collectively go on "rehab" to cure ourselves of our oil addiction.

I have lived abroad for many years and an unofficial spokesman for my country in my adopted country. The people of Mexico want my interpretation as a "gringo" as to the "why" of the diverse facets of US society, government, politics, etc. This also when I speak some of my best Spanish.

For the last seven years, I have felt and projected a sense of shame when I try to comment on the US government and its policies, post November 2000. I also want to have a smile on my face exuding pride, not shame with my head down, as I speak of the land where I was born, raised, and molded, etc.

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!!! I think WE ALL WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK!!!
Richard Cadena
Mexico City

Lyle -- Thanks. As you well know, I'm not the world's biggest fan of the Clintons. But lies and wild accusations of the sort the GOP has leveled against both Bill and Hillary are simply beyond the pale.

Colin: I wish I could express myself as well as you. Your 02:59 PM and 03:04 PM comments is exactly what I wanted to say as well.

LoudounVoter -- good point. Historical perspective can be rather important, to say the least. Turns out politics existed before 1980...

"Another big difference USMC-mike: Clintons scandals were real. Bush's are invented for partisan purposes. count the . . . " Yeah, Clinton's scandals were real alright: as real as a stain on a dress. Bush's are merely political, you know, like 3800 dead American young people and God knows how many dead innocent Iraqis, a trillion dollar hand out to Exxon (call it Iraq), a deficit our grandchildren's children will still be paying, payola tax cuts for the rich (paper tokens for the poor), and the destruction of America's image as an icon of goodness. The difference in realities exists, methinks, in the minds of deluded Republicans.

Colin: not to mention the kind of mud that got slung at FDR and Abe Lincoln, among others.

Mike said "It's hard to rule a gunshot in the back of the head, followed by an unexplained plane explosion, a suicide Jim."

If you ever go to law school, you will perhaps realize how stupid this statement is. On so many levels.

USMC Mike: I didn't realize you were such a "Clinton Hater", apparently you consider the loss of life and limbs of our troops less important than Bubba getting a BJ, and not sending our troops into harms way based on how much money is in it for you and your friends.

USMC Mike -- Do a google search on what Republican leaders said about Clinton when he put troops on the ground in Bosnia, etc. There are some fantastic and "supportive" quotes from Delay, Santorum, etc. Here are some examples:

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)"

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"You can support the troops but not the president."
---Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

Which, by the way, is fine in my book if those folks really disagreed with those specific military actions. Supporting a president when the country is at war is wrong, IMO, if you think the war is in error. In fact, I'd say supporting a war you don't' believe in is the least patriotic thing a citizen could do. No one should supporting keeping soldiers in harms way when the mission isn't in our national interest.

Oh, and the idea that GWB has been attacked more than Clinton is a joke. I think you're relatively young, so perhaps you don't remember what the eight years of the Clinton administration were like. Let me assure you, the vitriol thrown at Clinton -- culminating in his impeachment -- belongs in a separate category from what GWB has been forced to endure. Nixon, I would add, was also vilified more than GWB - even before Watergate fully broke. Heck, Johnson probably endured more as well.

Chris, valuable comparison of the strategies/efficacy of the candidates. Is anyone writing similarly regarding the ISSUES . Do a FIX on the ISSUES or please refer us to a comparable source.

Blarg, call it the rule of normal distribution. On any given issue moderates will always be more numerous than the extremes.

Jim: I hope you see that you are wasting your time discussing anything with Mike. You'll never get him to agree that anything that Clinton did or was done to Clinton is comparable to anything that a Republican president did or had done to him.

But I commend your tenacity.

Mike

If you believe that tabloid nonsense, there is no point trying to discuss these things rationally.

My point was that the poisoning of our political discourse has been going on much longer than Bush's presidency. In fact, I voted against Clinton both times he ran.

Mark: I'm not calling for "doctrinal purity". I'm not saying that only people with a narrow set of beliefs should be allowed to be Democrats. I'm saying that the Democrats need to offer something different from the Republicans. For years, the rhetoric has been practically identical from both parties, with the Republicans always leading the way. The Democrats need to stop trying to catch up with the Republicans by imitating their ideas and using their terminology. Democrats need to be a distinct and separate party. My original post was a response to Carlyle, who whined about liberals Limbaugh-style but claimed to be a Democrat. The spectrum of political thought is so narrow in this country, and Carlyle wants to make it even narrower.

Dave, the problem is the 2-party system. Right now, niche parties don't have a chance, because of the spoiler effect. Back in 2000, many Democrats (myself included) pointed out that a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush. If we had a different voting system which allowed someone to express preference for both Nader and Gore, I'm sure Nader's turnout would have been much higher.

Would Kucinich get anywhere nationally? Probably not. But I've seen polls showing that a significant majority favors liberal causes like universal healthcare, higher minimum wage, etc. And I've heard unreliable anecdotal evidence that Kucinich has amazingly high scores in those online candidate selection quizzes. Maybe if he was put in a situation where he could actually say more than a few sentences in the debates, and where the spoiler effect wasn't an issue, he'd have some success. But right now Kucinich, and other liberal politicians, are stuck in a negative feedback loop. The national party is afraid of seeming too liberal, so they pretend the liberal wing of the party doesn't exist.

Mike, I agree with your assessment of HRC, but respectfully disagree with your point that Bush and the war should not be criticized.

I'm happy to live in a democracy where it is possible to criticize the president or his war without fear of retribution. Try to do the same thing in Russia!

As for the war it is our duty to criticize it because it is based on false pretenses and it is a colossal drain of our resources. Now tell me which lie is worse. Lying about infidelity. Or lying that lead to a war causing the death of hundreds of thousands and the displacement of millions. Let any reasonable person be the judge!

The comments over the past several days about how Hillary would unite the Repubs to such a great extent is certainly what I have been reading. This has me thinking should she get the nomination, which I believe will happen, The same thing is most likely to happen in the vast majority of Dems and Is that would fear another GW mistake is in the making. Anyway, this could bring the most people to the polls in our history, not only in actual numbers, but percentage of voters as well.

P.S.

It's hard to rule a gunshot in the back of the head, followed by an unexplained plane explosion, a suicide Jim.

The Clintons are a mob and we all know it.

vbhoomes: Obama has a history of not showing up for the difficult decision. My guess is that he won't be able to lead, because he can't make the hard decisions.

Jim,

I'm not saying people didn't hate Bill. He might rank 2nd or 3rd in history. But GWB is unprecedented and it's disgusting.

He didn't "cut his losses", he was afraid of body counts. Period. No support for the military, and without sufficient troops we couldn't get it done.

He was a weak commander-in-chief and everyone knows it.

Reagan regretted Lebanon. And the two are not comparable.

D"ems want trailer trash. this is why I support Rudy. We are done being a punching back based on falsehoods."

Ha ha ha. Ok KOZ, I understand. Rudy would no doubt take on NYT, moveon, CNN, but I think he would be a 1-term president who would leave behind a mess that the country would see as a D's to clean up.

Chris

You are finally looking objective unlike many of your Post colleauges who seem to be hankering for a job in the Clinton administration. Is there not a rule in the Post which forbids journalists to accept hospitality from the presidential campaigners ? If not, should there not be. Are embedded journalists any better than they were cheerleading the Iraq war.

Mike

You mean little things like Jerry Falwell peddling videos on TV accusing Clinton of murder. Richard Scaife Mellon funding a group going through Arkansas looking for dirt on Clinton, and making things up when they couldn't find enough.

One could argue that pulling out of Somalia was cutting our losses. What do you think of Reagan pulling out of Lebanon after the Marines were blown up? It was a very similar type of decision.

Can we move along or are we going to rehash the past 15 years for the next 100? Oh, did I really even bother to ask that?

Obstruction of justice is still a crime last I checked.

But maybe you're right, we shouldn't talk about why we should support our President in war, regardless of our political leanings. I guess that's just a military perspective from someone who doesn't want to see Americans die because of fatass pig rosie odonnell.

Another big difference USMC-mike: clintons scandals were real. Bush's are invented for partisan purposes. count the number of Bush folks in jail and compare to clinton. count the silverware, the furniture, the pardons, the chinese money, etc.

On bush we hear about the "scandals" such as he lied us into war and other loony leftist nonsense. policy differences made to look criminal. why are so many sheeple going along with this nonsense? rumor and innuendo as supposition.

why won't Bush fight back. too classy? - too bad. the Dems want trailer trash. this is why I support Rudy. We are done being a punching back based on falsehoods.

did anyone see the ellen incident with Jenna calling daddy. he is a real guy, not concerend with daily polls and public adulation, like some others we know. he does what he thinks is right and takes the hits. not many pols like this left. too bad. now I don't agree with about half of what he does polkicy -wise, but he is a good man, honest and caring.

I would relay a story about a trip to the WH and a visit with him during a bad time to show what a thoughtful and considerate person he is, but you cynics are beyond hope.

Just keep up the lies and slime. It is the only way for you to win.

"I believe Hillary still has the fortitude, intelligence, consensus-building capacity, and experience to do the job."

fortitude -- see above, McCain wins big on fortitude.

intelligence -- I think Romney is probably smarter. Calculating != intelligence.

consensus building -- what a laugh. Obama, Edwards, Huckabee, and McCain all beat her on this.

experience -- failing healthcare reform in '94 and lots of tea parties and socials doesn't count for the junior Senator from NY. Biden? McCain? Huckabee?

It's like a hypnosis, I swear.

Bryant: I do agree with you Huckabee will win Iowa (Remember they went for Pat Robertson) but he will lose his mojo in New hampshire. The republicans up there are economic conservatives not social conservatives. I see Fred dropping out in Iowa or NH. Somebody on his staff should had told him running for President is not a 9 to 5 job. Romney will win NH with McCain and Rudy close behind. Then SC will probably go Romney and also MI to Romney. By the time rudy gets in the game, the two minute warning will be sounding. ITS GOING TO BE ROMNEY or HUCKABEE.

right Mike, he was merely impeached. Nothing like being called a dimwit.

Can we move along or are we going to rehash the past 15 years for the next 100? Oh, did I really even bother to ask that?

Chris - I agree with your analysis that Obama can win the nomination if his candidacy becomes a "movement." I think it already has turned in that direction. The Jefferson-Jackson speech was the moment - in my opinion - that it happened. That speech was one of the most moving and inspiring addresses I have ever heard. One other point I'd like to make is on the issue of "experience" - please, everyone, remember that Abraham Lincoln served only ONE two-year term in the US House of Representatives (along with his time in the Illinois State Legislature) before becoming president! I think Obama, Clinton, and Edwards have all had enough "experience" to be president. But what is most important to me is their JUDGMENT! Obama wins hands down with his decision to oppose the Iraq War. That showed true courage of conviction! I hope the Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire will become a part of this "Obama Movement" and will propel him forward to win the nomination and the presidency!

I am not ready to stake my future on a movement. I want a leader who can tackle the complex problems facing my country, and my children. I am not ready to stake my future on Hollywood hype that is more style than substance.

I am in immigrant who will vote for his president for the very first time next year. I will vote for Hillary. I will do so because I believe she has what it takes to tackle the complex problems that faces this country. I need someone who can turn back the last 8 years. Flawed and awkward though she is, I believe Hillary still has the fortitude, intelligence, consensus-building capacity, and experience to do the job.

I don't just want the dream. I want the dream with guts, and tears, and strength. To me, that is not Obama. It is Hillary. And she would be the first woman president - if that ain't change, I don't know what is.

I say Coward specifically because, as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces, he allowed some rag-tag punks in Somalia to push the US around, and ended up NOT engaging in Rwanda, Sierra Leonne, etc... which led to genocide.

Maybe he was charasmatic, and lots of people like(d) him. My fiance (wife in 8 days!) likes him, as does her entire family.

But even he didn't take as much crap as the 'liar, dimwit, architect of 9/11 Bush'.

Two points on Chris's comments.
First Baracks' closing line in that briliant ad says it all: "Americas time is now".
This race, from the views of each political persuasion, is no longer about 'standards'.
Everyone has had it with the b.s. of old.

Regardless on all the hype around why Dean lost to Kerry in 2004, Kerry got it only because he brought something so special the average American could hardly refuse-the Veterans. The Veterans hit deep in America's soul. When a politician can do that, whether intentionally or accidentally, the voters are putty. The votes are then driven by gut driven believabilty and faith.
Clinton has already lost both of those battles, and, just as I predicted earlier this year -Bill Clinton status has suffered while trying to cover her backside to the extent that both of them have lost their superstar status.

An Obama and Oprah event would now easily beat a Hillary and Bill event.
Because the one represents the past -the other the future.

The people are ready..

Chris, We know that you are a Obama cheer leader. There was no reason for you to put exclusive Obama video on your post. I think you need more objectivity to be a good journalist.

Honestly - do you think HRC could get elected on the issues, she won't discuss. on the record she doesn't have, on the experience - holding teas?

the only chance of HRC winning an election is to obfuscate and throw mud to drive up everyone else's negatives.