The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


The Pollster

Obama Takes the Lead in N.H.

By Jon Cohen
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has jumped to a double-digit lead in New Hampshire with two days to go, neutralizing New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's onetime advantage among female voters, according to two state polls released today.

The Illinois senator holds a 10-point edge in the new CNN-WMUR poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire and a 13-point bulge over Clinton in the new USA Today-Gallup poll. Both surveys report a large boost in support for Obama since he won the Iowa caucuses on Thursday.

More respondents in both polls now call Obama the candidate with the best shot at winning in November, a dramatic turnaround from before last week's caucuses, when Clinton was widely perceived as the most electable Democrat.

Another change from previous polls is that Obama now runs evenly with Clinton among women; he holds a 2-1 advantage among men. (In Iowa, 35 percent of female Democratic caucusgoers supported Obama, 30 percent Clinton, according to the network entrance poll.)

Among GOP candidates, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) leads former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by six points in the CNN-WMUR poll and four points in the USA Today-Gallup poll.

Posted at 9:26 PM ET on Jan 6, 2008  | Category:  The Pollster
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: From the Throng, Chris Matthews Tries to Book Clinton | Next: Paul Has 'No Intention' of Making Third-Party Bid

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

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

Posted by: | May 5, 2008 8:54 PM

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

Posted by: coatesmoe | January 19, 2008 11:36 AM

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

Posted by: cyberella | January 13, 2008 3:05 PM

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

Posted by: cyberella | January 13, 2008 12:52 PM

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

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

Posted by: brigittepj | January 8, 2008 2:00 PM

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

Posted by: stoptheluftwaffeifyoucan | January 8, 2008 8:14 AM

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

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

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

Posted by: k_griffith-ryan | January 8, 2008 12:16 AM

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

Posted by: evan.sandsmark | January 7, 2008 7:48 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a great time to be an American!

Posted by: vote4mikehuckabee | January 7, 2008 7:00 PM


Posted by: rugman | January 7, 2008 6:00 PM

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

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

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

Posted by: augustarq | January 7, 2008 4:34 PM

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

Posted by: magliz | January 7, 2008 3:56 PM thread is both heartwarming and terribly discouraging. The racism here and the vitriole toward Clinton are both disgraceful. I am a 52 year old female who applauds the youth movement in this election. It is about time and whoever can bring the under 30 voters out on election day as Democrats should be applauded. But at the same time we have to stop destroying each other before the general election. We have three qualified, exciting and electable candidates...and I for one will support whoever is nominated regardless of my personal preference. The enemy is not Obama, Clinton or Edwards. The enemy sits in the White House and destorys our constitution day by day, leads us into tyranny and fascism day by day, tortures, denies citizens and non citizens alike basic rights that America has always stood for, wiretaps its own people, and acts like a monarchy instead of a democracy. And they have placed their people in all levels of government, they are entrenched and if the Dems don't win we are in for a cruel cruel surprise...
I may prefer one of the Dems over the others but if the dems don't win, we are in real trouble...
What worries me about this thread is the hatred of one or another candidate, the dismissal of any of them, the need to denigrate the other in order to elevate ourselves. You will say I am out of touch, too optimistic, etc...but I believe we have to come Democrats and support whoever is nominated. Those of you who will vote republican or stay home if your candidate is not the nominee, shame on you. Do you really care about the future of this country or the world? Is your candidate more important than saving this country from people who do not believe in democracy or the constitution?? Come on people....this is the is the hour...democrats MUST win this election and it is going to take everyone of us to do so.
I have campaigned for Bobby Kennedy when I was 13, and for Bill Clinton when I was 35. And at 52 I WILL WORK MY HEART OUT FOR WHOEVER our nominee is, because we are the hope of the world. This is the most serious election in our lifetime...the choice between dem and Rep. is stark...and the difference between the beliefs and policies of the three Dem candidates is slim...this won't be over until after Super Tues., but when it is over we need to support our nominee and win this thing in November. We can't do that if we destroy each other before then.

Posted by: kassiejoni | January 7, 2008 3:16 PM

BecJensen1: Obama might change his mind:

This is true with any president as circumstances change.

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

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

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

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

Posted by: kiku | January 7, 2008 2:57 PM

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

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

Obama has already proven he surrounds himself with excellent advisors.

Posted by: kiku | January 7, 2008 2:50 PM

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

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

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

Posted by: kiku | January 7, 2008 2:45 PM

This is a copy of my letter to my friend:

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


Posted by: lxcartr | January 7, 2008 2:41 PM

pctheisinger: partisan republican party is strong:

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

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

Posted by: kiku | January 7, 2008 2:40 PM

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

Posted by: kiku | January 7, 2008 2:26 PM

buffalophil: lobbyists:

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

Posted by: kiku | January 7, 2008 2:23 PM

jimscorner: Hillary's tough.

That she is.

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

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

Posted by: kiku | January 7, 2008 2:19 PM

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

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

Posted by: kiku | January 7, 2008 2:15 PM

Hillary's supporters reasons for not supporting Obama:

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

Nuf said.

Posted by: kiku | January 7, 2008 2:10 PM

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

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

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

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

Posted by: kiku | January 7, 2008 2:07 PM

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

Posted by: claudiam1 | January 7, 2008 2:03 PM

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

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

Posted by: peabeln | January 7, 2008 1:54 PM

Posted by: TennGurl | January 7, 2008 1:23 PM

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

Posted by: magellan1 | January 7, 2008 12:52 PM

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

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

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

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

Posted by: thd850 | January 7, 2008 12:47 PM

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

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

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

Posted by: katharinerusso | January 7, 2008 12:45 PM

The only stupid (invalid) question is the one not asked. As always, YMMV. For anyone else actually interested in discussing the issues surrounding the 2008 election, there's a new thread:

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 12:09 PM

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 12:01 PM

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

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 11:59 AM

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

Posted by: tothebank | January 7, 2008 11:58 AM

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

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 11:56 AM

"Yo" = "To"

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 11:54 AM

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

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 11:54 AM

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

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 11:50 AM

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

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

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

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 11:47 AM

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

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 11:43 AM

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

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 11:40 AM

Here are the two pending questions to thd850:

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

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

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 11:40 AM

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

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

Posted by: djudge1 | January 7, 2008 11:38 AM

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

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 11:37 AM

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

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

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 11:36 AM

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 11:34 AM

Is this "treading on thin ice" thd850?

Part of Obama's church doctrine:

Commitment to the BLACK Community

Commitment to the BLACK Family

Adherence to the BLACK Work Ethic

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

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

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

Personal commitment to embracement of the BLACK Value System

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

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

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 11:27 AM

Okay, how about these talking points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 11:25 AM

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

Posted by: thd850 | January 7, 2008 11:25 AM

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

Posted by: jbrandeberry | January 7, 2008 11:17 AM

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

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 11:16 AM

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


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

Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 7, 2008 11:12 AM

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

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 11:06 AM

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

Posted by: nobush | January 7, 2008 11:03 AM

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 10:58 AM

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

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

Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 7, 2008 10:51 AM

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

Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 10:49 AM

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

Posted by: p_peppermint | January 7, 2008 10:44 AM

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

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 10:42 AM


Posted by: JakeD | January 7, 2008 10:38 AM

rahaha ,

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

Posted by: hindukush | January 7, 2008 10:37 AM


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

Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 7, 2008 10:37 AM

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 10:35 AM


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

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

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

Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 7, 2008 10:29 AM

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

Posted by: brigittepj | January 7, 2008 10:26 AM

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 10:24 AM

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 10:17 AM

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

Posted by: JATECT2 | January 7, 2008 10:17 AM

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 10:13 AM

Spring_Rain writes:


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


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

Posted by: veeve | January 7, 2008 10:11 AM

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

Posted by: ArmyVet | January 7, 2008 10:08 AM

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

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

Posted by: utah4 | January 7, 2008 10:05 AM

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 10:04 AM

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

Posted by: Birddog08 | January 7, 2008 10:03 AM

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

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

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

Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 7, 2008 10:02 AM

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

Posted by: GMoreau | January 7, 2008 9:55 AM

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

Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 7, 2008 9:52 AM

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

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

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

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

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


Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 7, 2008 9:44 AM

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

Posted by: Jeffdube | January 7, 2008 9:43 AM

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

Posted by: katsarber1 | January 7, 2008 9:40 AM

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

Posted by: joy2 | January 7, 2008 9:34 AM


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


The Clinton machine is falling apart before our very eyes.

Posted by: zb95 | January 7, 2008 9:22 AM

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

Posted by: DonA1 | January 7, 2008 9:20 AM

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

Posted by: cy31b | January 7, 2008 9:19 AM

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

For those of you who still have not heard:

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

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

Together for Obama,

Posted by: annevilla | January 7, 2008 9:18 AM

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

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 7, 2008 9:06 AM

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

Posted by: dyck21005 | January 7, 2008 9:05 AM

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

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

Posted by: meldupree | January 7, 2008 9:04 AM

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

Posted by: gbooksdc | January 7, 2008 8:59 AM

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

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


Posted by: hemnebob | January 7, 2008 8:56 AM

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

Posted by: hemnebob | January 7, 2008 8:48 AM

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

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

Posted by: alterego1 | January 7, 2008 8:30 AM

For those who denigrate Obama's experience and consider Billary's useful (lying, fraudulentbanking, cheating, scamming, eliciting jerry-rigged poll outcomes, etc.) here is an article from the Washington Post


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

Posted by: fenwayfem | January 7, 2008 8:27 AM


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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: goat909295 | January 7, 2008 8:20 AM

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

Posted by: euripedes | January 7, 2008 8:14 AM

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

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

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

Posted by: NoMugwump | January 7, 2008 7:55 AM

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

Posted by: johnycheng1 | January 7, 2008 7:40 AM

Just like Bush had Rove ... Obama has it's Axelrod's that's who ... but I guess you guys already knew that ... the Best Fool Knows the Planner Behind the Plan or Should I say Plant of Obama ... `Change Crapola' ... read about David Axelrod ... and how he created the most tightly wrapped Obamadate in history: this guy is an operator as slick as Karl Rove - worked on many campaigns and has always used his message to tell a tale `to elect his guy'. `A Message of Hope' ...` Bridge to the 21st Century' 1996 ... the new Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick ... sound familiar, that's David Axelrod. From Mayor Daley of Chicago, to Harold Washington the late ex-mayor, from Bill Clinton to the late Senator from Illinois Paul Simon ... David Axelrod. It's all about compares to the past, and `the great Tale of the Candidate' ... `The Audacity of Hope' ... read about all the answers, no holds barred: ... (you will have to register at NYTimes `great piece') ... called Obama's Narrator. Axelrod is even a good friend of the Clinton's, Axelrod is the Guy Who Created Obamalaria and `the fever of change on a dozen insurgent Democrat campaigns' ... even Edwards, all these guys know each other so well - it's almost like they had each other's kids!

Posted by: JohnOsborneNY | January 7, 2008 7:13 AM

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

Posted by: dunnhaupt | January 7, 2008 6:47 AM

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

Posted by: nkabb2 | January 7, 2008 6:17 AM

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

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

Posted by: BecJensen1 | January 7, 2008 5:51 AM

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

Posted by: BecJensen1 | January 7, 2008 5:40 AM

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

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

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

By 1992 he was the nation's senior governor.

Posted by: BecJensen1 | January 7, 2008 5:37 AM

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

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

Posted by: BecJensen1 | January 7, 2008 5:16 AM

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

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

Posted by: antispy | January 7, 2008 5:08 AM

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

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

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

CBS article from February 20, 2003:

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

Feb. 20, 2003
paragraph 9
"The inspectors do acknowledge, however, that they would not be here at all if not for the threat of U.S. military action."

Posted by: BecJensen1 | January 7, 2008 5:04 AM

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

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

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

Posted by: ohanamoniz | January 7, 2008 4:53 AM

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

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

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

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

A brief biography of Harold Ford from


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

Life's Work

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

Posted by: BecJensen1 | January 7, 2008 4:49 AM

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

Posted by: rockalouise | January 7, 2008 4:21 AM

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

No wonder why she is going down to South.

Posted by: sukkee | January 7, 2008 3:59 AM

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

Posted by: zhou_tn | January 7, 2008 3:57 AM

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

Posted by: leander | January 7, 2008 3:51 AM

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

Posted by: tgl88 | January 7, 2008 3:49 AM

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

Posted by: ppaguia | January 7, 2008 3:32 AM

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

Posted by: tgl88 | January 7, 2008 3:24 AM

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

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

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

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

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

Looks as if I'm gonna get my fill.

Posted by: filmex | January 7, 2008 3:16 AM

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

Posted by: buffalophil | January 7, 2008 2:59 AM


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

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

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

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

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

Posted by: rmctwo | January 7, 2008 2:51 AM

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

Posted by: sd71 | January 7, 2008 2:33 AM

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

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

Posted by: twinward | January 7, 2008 2:23 AM

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

Posted by: oragar | January 7, 2008 2:22 AM

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

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

Posted by: deadondres | January 7, 2008 2:12 AM

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

Posted by: pjwright | January 7, 2008 1:30 AM


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

Posted by: davisny | January 7, 2008 12:54 AM

No, genadoll. God help YOU.

Posted by: tommit | January 7, 2008 12:42 AM

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

Posted by: rbaile | January 7, 2008 12:41 AM

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


Posted by: ralphdaugherty | January 7, 2008 12:38 AM

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

Posted by: deadondres | January 7, 2008 12:35 AM

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

Posted by: diabloquick.wa | January 7, 2008 12:30 AM

deadondres --

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

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

Posted by: pctheisinger | January 7, 2008 12:29 AM

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

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

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


Posted by: ralphdaugherty | January 7, 2008 12:29 AM

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

Posted by: jabplus | January 7, 2008 12:27 AM

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

Posted by: jimscorner | January 7, 2008 12:24 AM

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

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

Posted by: pctheisinger | January 7, 2008 12:24 AM

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

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

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


Posted by: ralphdaugherty | January 7, 2008 12:23 AM

Dear Jon:

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

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

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

Posted by: ardano | January 7, 2008 12:22 AM

Oh and by the way if we have the Andrew Jacksons rolling in their graves we must be doing something right...

Posted by: deadondres | January 7, 2008 12:19 AM

what happens when Democrats wake up and realize that Barack Obama has never been in a major contested election. He won election to the Senate only after the Chicago Tribune knocked his opponent out of the race. A century ago Democrats had a great orator for a candidate, but William Jennings Bryan became a 3 time loser as a presidential candidate.

Only one Democrat has defeated a Republican without first serving as a governor or inheriting the presidency after the death or a president Barack Obama is no John F. Kennedy and his opponent won't be an incumbent vice president (only two of them have won in the last 200 years).

Obama is the best thing Republicans have going for him. His nomination could make it possible for Michael Bloomberg to become the first minor party candidate to win a presidential election since Lincoln.

Posted by: jalexson0 | January 7, 2008 12:19 AM

Some have commented on the race aspect. It's not just a race thing, it's what the Republicans will do with this particular black man.

They're passing around a link to his church web site now on the internet, and if the MSM prints what that web site says, you can kiss the Democrats presidential hopes goodbye.

Someone posted the basics of it in the ABC blog similar to this one, so it's getting some air already.


Posted by: ralphdaugherty | January 7, 2008 12:17 AM

Racists like genadoll who claim that their "age group" is not ready to vote for Obama better be prepared to know that a much younger and more tolerant "age group" is preparing to replace a generation that proved it no longer had any shame in voting by reelecting Bush unequivocally. I am sorry that black people scare you so much unfortunately we now must sieze the country away from such living anachronisms as yourself. And we'll be "hip-hopping" the whole way, haha!

Posted by: deadondres | January 7, 2008 12:16 AM

I continue to hear 35 years of experience. What 35 years? Before her run in the Senate she had been the wife of a President for 8 and 12 years as Governor of Arkansas. This doesn't prove anything and sure we share with our spouses about our jobs but that doesn't make them gain experience. Before that she was a lawyer and her only claim during her husbands tenure which was Health Care was a failure. So again 35 years keeps being mentioned but I don't see it. All I see is her Husband, Albright and all the old Clinton Guard by her side so for someone who says she is her own person her fall back is always to the success of her husband.

I have not made up my mind on who I'm voting for but that 35 years thing after researching is not true. My opinion.

Posted by: robinson.santiago | January 7, 2008 12:13 AM

It is increasingly looking like Sen. Obama is going to win in NH. What will this mean to the Clinton campaign and what happened to the machine?

Not answering questions in the home stretch in Iowa and traveling seperate and with her press corps behind, Sen. Clinton's campaign has helped form a narrative that has probably handed NH to Obama.

More thoughts on the subject...

Posted by: thepoliticalpost | January 7, 2008 12:10 AM

Do not get confused. Mr Obama got 37% of delegates alloted to Iowa. The percentage of actual people who caucused for him is a lot higher according to the Des Moines Register. I think we can say Mr Obama had a landslide victory, not a convincing one by 8% lead.

To Hill supporters, or Golden Girls,
Mr. Obama is fighting to give the power to reign our government back to us. If you have chosen to remain slavish, so be it. But you do not have to brag about it publicly.

Posted by: mkk0918 | January 7, 2008 12:10 AM

The Democratic debate yesterday caused me reluctantly to conclude Hillary Clinton is by far the most intelligent, most qualified, most articulate and most capable candidate for president. She has a depth of knowledge and an ability to make connections on all sorts of subjects that none of the others have. Obama is a flavor of the week. He is inexperienced in Washington, he has never managed anything in his life and he has nothing of substance to say. "Hope" and "change" are pretty words, but they mean little in real terms.

I'm reluctant to say I support Hillary because for the past year, I've resented her as the spouse of a former president. However, she makes it clear she is Bill's equivalent (if not superior) when it comes to intelligence and drive.

Posted by: peterlor | January 7, 2008 12:09 AM

At long last, a chance for Americans to turn our country around and be proud again to be Americans, instead of ashamed!

I'm so excited that such an honest and ethical candidate has the audacity, optimism and energy to lead us out of this Bush/Cheney/Clinton hell-hole and into a much brighter future!

I'll never forget the day that Congress decided to shine the fact that Clinton had lied under oath. My God, the President of the United States did that; what did that say to our children and grandchildren? That day was the beginning of America's downward spiral, I believe. Now we have a chance to turn it around and carry on as a strong and decent country where no one is above the law, and where we care about each other and work together to solve the challenges that appear.


Posted by: blisssusan88 | January 7, 2008 12:09 AM

I agree, the Democrats will loose. My self and many of my age group are not excited about having a man who has no shame in trying to run for an office he is not qualified for. In addition, he has a wife who jumps around like she is hip hopping while campaigning. If he was so hot, why did he need Oprah? Couldn't do it on his own!

He most definitly is more black than Oreo and it shows because he choose a wife who is black. Listen up, because when he becomes President, African Americans will not be arrested, they will empty the prisons and cause more crime than ever imagined. Our country will be like the "Planet of the apes".

Also, I do not think he is handsome, I agree that his ears are ugly like Dumbos...I think Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Andrew Jackson are rolling and squirming in their graves.

God Help us!

Posted by: genadoll | January 7, 2008 12:07 AM

I agree with optimyst -- I am an Obama fan who is thrilled by the prospect of a truly inspirational and hope-filled candidate this fall and don't want to rub it in to the HRC supporters. But I am also dismayed by the number of HRC supporters who threaten that they'll desert the dems and vote for whoever the republicans put up should Obama be the nominee. I hate to say it, but that is emblematic of the kind of rhetoric and arrogant attitude that imbues HRC's campaign. I don't support her; I think her nomination would be divisive and result in yet one more republican president. But I would sure as heck vote for her over Huckabee et al. and I would never try to damage the future of this country because my ego (and candidate) had been bruised. Grow up people and stop the petty politics of fear and threats!

Posted by: Omyobama | January 7, 2008 12:07 AM

For all those criticizing Obama for empty rhetoric, I encourage you to visit the issues section of his website. The policy paper pdfs are more numerous and more detailed than those on the Clinton site. While they're not as detailed what public policy professors would produce, one just can't expect that from a campaign. Please, just give them a look.

Posted by: jpc.murphy | January 7, 2008 12:07 AM

For all those criticizing Obama for empty rhetoric, I encourageou to visit the issues section of his website. The policy paper pdfs are more numerous and more detailed than those on the Clinton site. While they're not as detailed what public policy professors would produce, one just can't expect that from a campaign. Please, just give them a look.

Posted by: jpc.murphy | January 7, 2008 12:07 AM

I agree with optimyst -- I am an Obama fan who is thrilled by the prospect of a truly inspirational and hope-filled candidate this fall and don't want to rub it in to the HRC supporters. But I am also dismayed by the number of HRC supporters who threaten that they'll desert the dems and vote for whoever the republicans put up should Obama be the nominee. I hate to say it, but that is emblematic of the kind of rhetoric and arrogant attitude that imbues HRC's campaign. I don't support her; I think her nomination would be divisive and result in yet one more republican president. But I would sure as heck vote for her over Huckabee et al. and I would never try to damage the future of this country because my ego (and candidate) had been bruised. Grow up people and stop the petty politics of fear and threats!

Posted by: Omyobama | January 7, 2008 12:07 AM

I agree with optimyst -- I am an Obama fan who is thrilled by the prospect of a truly inspirational and hope-filled candidate this fall and don't want to rub it in to the HRC supporters. But I am also dismayed by the number of HRC supporters who threaten that they'll desert the dems and vote for whoever the republicans put up should Obama be the nominee. I hate to say it, but that is emblematic of the kind of rhetoric and arrogant attitude that imbues HRC's campaign. I don't support her; I think her nomination would be divisive and result in yet one more republican president. But I would sure as heck vote for her over Huckabee et al. and I would never try to damage the future of this country because my ego (and candidate) had been bruised. Grow up people and stop the petty politics of fear and threats!

Posted by: Omyobama | January 7, 2008 12:07 AM


Every candidate in 2008 has ZERO experience in being President of the United States.

The closest occupation is probably candidate. Similar pressure and similar tasks: mobilizing public opinion, communications, managing a lot of money and people, building coalitions, persuasion.

The most successful candidate is probably the best qualified individual.

Posted by: mnjam | January 7, 2008 12:03 AM

"claiming to be a hrc supporter."

emphasis on the claiming part. The post was a troll post to be sure.


Posted by: ralphdaugherty | January 7, 2008 12:02 AM

I am suprised that Obama refuses to defend himself against charges of inexperience. In many ways it could be a plus. I can think of another president that built his reputation in the Illinois state legislature and never served as a US Congressman before becoming president. Interestingly, Obama preaches a similar message: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

Posted by: deadondres | January 7, 2008 12:00 AM

A quote can't remember who:


Posted by: harried | January 6, 2008 11:57 PM

What's the best outcome (given this field of candidates?)

Let's say we could throw out every candidate on both sides who's obviously bought and paid for by large financial interests, well-heeled religious fanatics, foreign governments, or foreign intelligence agencies. This leaves out every quasi-viable Republican, and it leaves out Hillary, Edwards, and Richardson. Who'se left- Kucinich (hard to buy someone like him, but possible when he grows up someday) and Obama (eloquent but very unknown by Oval Office standards).

Thus, on a good day we'd be betting the Republic either on the unknown (read: fear of the-) or on a not-so-fringe radical who bankrupted the City of Cleveland at age 31. Game theory says to take the unknown, although most voters able to count to 270 would probably take either one in a heartbeat over the incumbents (unless the chads start hanging again).

Took us 231 years to ruin what the Founders built, and most of the damage has been in the last 40 years. Four years of Congressional gridlock has become our de facto reward for accepting the limited choice between red & blue shades of failure ---of the once-great country that's truly been failed by all of us.

Posted by: gerding | January 6, 2008 11:55 PM

The most amazing argument to me against Obama is that words don't count. The idea of "false hopes." I believe the argument is that rhetoric is the poetry of politics and there is a prose somewhere that actually makes things happen.

I will freely admit that I am an Obama supporter, but I would still like to offer two counterpoints to this argument about "rhetoric:"

1.) Abraham Lincoln pulled this country through its worst crisis through his words. It was his vision of what America could be, and his expression of this idea in words that helped make him America's greatest president.

2.) Winston Churchill did the same for Great Britain during its darkest days at the beginning of WWII. It was his speeches that lifted the hearts of his countrymen and made them believe that maybe they could get through that crisis.

All of which gets me back to Barack...

To denigrate his gift of a vision and oratory as though it had nothing to do with the nitty gritty of governing is to deny the idea that someone can actually try to appeal to the better interests of the American people. We should just accept the idea that the process is broken, the spirit of the American people is broken, and Washington will never reform itself.

Therefore, we need to nominate someone who knows how to receive the "incoming" and can give it back. Who's been "vetted" and is tough. Who is not necessarily inspirational, but does have specific ideas about school lunch programs, etc. Let's (collectively, as a nation) go back to the 90's when we had all of these big problems, but because of all of the silliness between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich we could only agree on school uniforms, but not an energy bill.

Gee, that would be fun! Let's do that again!

No, I think it is time to move on and "roll the dice" with a new generation, new ideas, and most importantly, a whole new approach.

I think Obama can make a start at healing the divisions both inside the United States and internationally as well. I may be misguided, but isn't it better to hope than to not hope at all?

Posted by: johnwpenberthy | January 6, 2008 11:54 PM

I am a great admirer of JFK. It appears we finally have somebody who is as inspirational as JFK, if not more. I am looking forward to voting for the Obama-Edwards ticket that will finally make us all proud to call ourselves Americans!

Posted by: kant1 | January 6, 2008 11:53 PM

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

Posted by: harried | January 6, 2008 11:52 PM

Spring Rain???
Acid Rain is a more apt moniker.
And I remember most pundits describing HClinton as "arrogant" and entitled"
Settle down!

And I remember a Presidential Candidate in his forties being accused of:

Lacking experience
Lacking foreign policy exposure
Needing to learn on the job

His name was Bill Clinton.

Obama will be fine. He is intelligent, engaging, persuasive and seems to lack the phoniness of Les Clintones.

Dick Morris knew the Clintons and is an expert on their manoeuvering and dirty
tricks. Obama needs to watch out. He will now be in their sights

Posted by: altumshell | January 6, 2008 11:50 PM

Obama is extraordinarly capable and the new face of America.

Posted by: kent831 | January 6, 2008 11:50 PM

The comparisons to Jimmy Carter are interesting and grabbed my attention. I think though that an examination of the record that Obama does have gives hope to the conclusion that he is not simply full of air and fluff.

A Newsweek article (here: describes a campaign that he fought while a member of the Illinois Legislature to pass an unpassable bill mandating the videotaping of suspect confessions. He worked both sides of the aisle and the governor over the course of months to pass legislation that he believed in.

Does one tale of one bill in a state capitol rather than DC reveal that he will do just fine? Of course not. I think the point that it begins to demonstrate is that he is not a guy that believes in the overwhelming obviousness of his opinions. He recognizes that many of his goals are very tough sells in the everyday world, much less in the partisan, gridlocked streets of DC. He is not a guy that thinks he can give a pretty speech and sit idle while then being amazed that his purrty words alone did not win the day.

He has been slugging in the trenches all of his political life.

I think also that many times the argument is being made that there is no examination of what exactly the guy is capable of. There is no indictment of his skill as a negotiator or criticism of his ability to bring about results, but rather an assumption that because he does well on the stump he will necessarily do poorly in the Oval.

Besides, in my opinion (especially after the last 8 years) an ability to not only form a diagrammable sentence more often than not should not be an added bonus to a president, it should be expected. The single most powerful person in the country should be able to inspire us, call us to action, and call us to focus.

At the end of the day though the questions of "all poetry, no prose" and "media hype" are fair ones. Obama supporters should pay attention to them and answer them for themselves now, because if he does get the nomination we will be hearing those same questions 100 times louder come the general election.

Posted by: mschwar99 | January 6, 2008 11:48 PM

This blog has been infiltrated by the Hillary and Obama campaigns.
There is no way either HRC and Obama can get elected. America is not there yet.
Hillary is stale. Let us try Obama.

Posted by: svarada123 | January 6, 2008 11:33 PM

Huh? What does this post mean?

Posted by: harried | January 6, 2008 11:47 PM

Obama's hope and change message sounds the same as the gov of MA Deval Patrick message who won by a huge % over the opponent a year ago. Unfortunately voters did not questioned enough the experience, problem solving skills and willingness to work with the all appointed politicians. Looking a year later, all the promises look unreachable and the only news these days is his willingness to spend state money on his Cadillac, office curtains, raise by $1 million his staff salaries (over previous administration), overuse state helicopter, allow gambling in retail stores.

Posted by: jmorgan | January 6, 2008 11:45 PM

In my 60 years I have never seen such a media stampede to a candidate.
Posted by: plovejoy | January 6, 2008 11:07 PM
Nor me in my 69 years. When the conservative side of the fourth estate pays more attention to the Democrat contests than the Republican the "OLD NOSE" smells ROVE!

Posted by: harried | January 6, 2008 11:41 PM

One question I have not seen addressed is what is Hillary Clinton's 35 years of experience she keeps talking about that makes here ready on day 1 to be president far and above her Democratic opponents? What I recall is

Several more years as senator than her Democratic rivals
8 years as first lady where she made good efforts for a health care plan, but otherwise was not involved in foreign and defense policy (Are all first spouses considered to have the equivalent of presidential experience? She often says "we" when referring to matters President Clinton acted on.)
4-8? years as first lady of Arkansas
An attorney in Arkansas, probably involved in a variety of legal issues
Worked to advocate for children

I would like to here more about this. Am I missing something?

Posted by: jallan85 | January 6, 2008 11:37 PM

This blog has been infiltrated by the Hillary and Obama campaigns.
There is no way either HRC and Obama can get elected. America is not there yet.
Hillary is stale. Let us try Obama.

Posted by: svarada123 | January 6, 2008 11:33 PM

What is different about Obama is he speaks to the better nature of ourselves. He inspires people. Photos in New Hampshire show people lined up for blocks by the hundreds and thousands waiting to hear him speak. That is why he is 10 points ahead of Hillary in New Hampshire.

Many complain about Obama as being vague on policies. If you want to know about Obama, visit his web site. Re_member ultimately Congress hammers out the policies.

Obama demonstrates he is a leader. If he can inspire republicans, democrats, conservatives, liberals, progressives alike to vote for him, he can inspire our representatives in the House and Senate to work together.

Obama has the personal skills, the intelligence, common sense, reason and logic and good judgment that are necessary for a strong leader.

Party affiliation is not at issue with Obama, the people are. He cares about the country, the world and that means the people.

A president cannot be effective or successful without the ability to inspire people. Bush is a prime example. He was never able to inspire, instead he tried to make Americans fearful. Consequently his politics of fear immobilized, divided and weakened America.

In contrast Obama asks us to choose 'hope over fear and unity over division.' Restoring our values and principles strengthens America. Because Obama appeals to our better nature Americans are galvanized. We want to be proud of America, not ashamed of it.

He says it is not about him, but us: "we" the people. He resonates with people of all stripes: political and otherwise. That is why Americans choose Obama over the other candidates.

I believe he is the real deal.

Americans have the chance to elect a leader that comes along only once in a generation.

Posted by: serena1313 | January 6, 2008 11:29 PM

Stop being so scared. You want a shoo-in for November in January. Sorry. That's not going to happen. It's going to be a long, hard campaign, and every one of the Democratic candidates has vulnerabilities and they will be attacked and exploited ruthlessly by the Republicans. Anyone who wants to wet his pants, suck his thumb and hide under his blanket can get out of the arena right now. The rest of you, get ready to put up a lawn sign, pick up a phone and knock on doors. Whomever the nominee is, any Democrat with a heart will work for him/her.

To those of you chiding the rest of us for failing to make a safe pick (I guess that'd be Edwards right now, because he's a white guy who hasn't been totally slimed yet by the GOP Hate Machine--by the way, I like him a lot), thanks for your advice. Love your track record, by the way. Thanks for Fritz Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry. Decent men and hard-working pols, all, and vanilla candidates. Good thing we never went for Gary Hart or Bill Bradley or Howard Dean. Geez, if we had, we might have missed all those great Reagan /Bush/Bush years.

As far as the policy specifics are concerned, they'll come, but put down the microscopes for a few minutes, fellow-wonks. When FDR ran in 1932, he criticized Hoover for running up a deficit and pledged to cut unnecessary government agencies. This is true. It's not what he did and it's not why he was elected. There is much more to leadership than policy proposals that will change and get mangled by the Congressional meat grinder anyway. We've become too cynical about vision and idealism, and I'm glad Independence Hall wasn't filled with the sort of careful pragmatists we've got all over the blogosphere and at DNC headquarters these days.

So, yeah, it's gonna be a fight, and our guy (or gal) is gonna get bloodied, and we'll have to punch back, and there'll be times when we'll be scared as hell about weather we can pull this off.

But this time we've got the better candidates and if we stick to saying what we believe, we've got the better message. It's time to stop being such a bunch of pants-wetting, hand-wringing sissies. Dream. Work. Fight. WIN.

Posted by: ultimattfrisbee | January 6, 2008 11:28 PM

"Can you see Obama beat a more experienced Mr McCain or Mr Romney? They will be way in the center by the time Novemeber rolls around."

I can see it clear as day.

You are operating out of fear, not positive creative passion. Don't forget, Obama won in Iowa NOT because he was sitting and hoping but because he had been quietly and intelligently working very hard building an effective and positive political organization.

He's no dummy.

He's smart. He's principled. He's positive. He's inspired.

And he's unstoppable.

Posted by: wpost4112 | January 6, 2008 11:27 PM

I think all this bickering among both parties have the country in the state it is in today just my observation.

Posted by: rfawkes | January 6, 2008 11:26 PM


well I'm a Reagan Democrat, voted for Bush (Sr.), Dole...and guess what, this year I will vote for Obama, if the Dems are smart enough to put him up! But I will vote for any Republican against the calculating, mechanistic Billary. 58% in November with Obama versus 51%, a mandate or another (Democratic) version of George Bush in Clinton...and then the likes of you running this country i.e. political sycophants

Posted by: michael.gardner4 | January 6, 2008 11:26 PM

A note to fellow Obama supporters: Now that it is quite likely that his/our lead in NH is insurmountable, let us emulate our candidate and take the high road in our comments to supporters of other candidates. Our movement is a positive one of hope. Let's stay true to our values and give everyone a chance to hop aboard so together we can create the change America needs. There is no need to respond to attacks except to correct false information. But let us not counter-attack. Instead let us ride the wave to the nomination with as many Americans aboard as we can welcome. This movement is an inclusive one. All are welcome.

Posted by: optimyst | January 6, 2008 11:24 PM

HRC is just trapped and has proven she would be a terrible general election candidate.

35 years of experience? LOL.

After Obama hammers them in NH and SC, what options does she have?

she *should* step aside like anyone else would do. is she going to motivate people by saying "we have the $$$ to make this a drag out fight to hurt the Dem chances in Nov"?

is she going to kneecap the first viable black candidate in American history???

she is totally trapped and shows little connection with voters.

if the Dems choose a staid candidate like her after Kerry and Gore, then they should just give it up.

Posted by: atadam | January 6, 2008 11:22 PM


Having personally met with Senator Obama, I can truthfully and emphatically say that he most certainly is not an "empty suit".

Nor are the other Democratic candidates, in my speculation. But there's something different about Mr. Obama - in him, I see the next great president of this country.

I don't see that in any other candidate.

Posted by: rslater | January 6, 2008 11:22 PM

Stick a fork in Hillary. She's done.

Posted by: shovetheplanet | January 6, 2008 11:21 PM

Spring Rain - what a beautiful name; please read "The Audacity of Hope." It's not a hard read, and it's genuine. Please compare to "It Takes A Village" (an impossible read) For those who call Obama an "empty suit" like our current president, I don't recall George W. Bush ever becoming the head of an Ivy League Law Review & I've had to turn off my radio/TV whenever he has spoken for the past 8 years. I don't have the same problem with Obama. Even when he slips into his law professorial mode (which, gosh darn, is what he does for a living - he actually had a day job before & during politics - what has Hillary done?) 35 years experience of shrilly shouting at her husband what he should do on every policy decision he's made?? that counts as "experience"? Why does no one take her to task on this? She had one successful children's legislative package late in Bill's second term, and has been in the Senate for 8 years. What else?

Posted by: jrsweld | January 6, 2008 11:21 PM

My questions to democrats: what are we looking for in a President? Are we looking for someone with a pulse on the issues of the day, the ability to set an agenda, and execute on it? Or, are we looking for a way of rejecting the Bush agenda - a protest vote so to speak? It seems to me that some democrats, the idealists, are using Mrs Clinton as a proxy for Mr Bush: a defeat of Mrs Clinton will be the rejection of Mr Bush. Great! What a victory! Then come November, once the victory is in hand and the real contest begins, the republicans will move a bit to the center and cream us. It is sad that both the parties republicans and democrats are saddled with extremists - the difference is that the Republicans are very disciplined, and in the end, will take out Mr Obama in the November elections.

Can you see Obama beat a more experienced Mr McCain or Mr Romney? They will be way in the center by the time Novemeber rolls around.

At least the democrats would have had their phyrric victory.

Posted by: rocketbass | January 6, 2008 11:20 PM

Fear and Loathing in the Clinton Campaign (man I miss Hunter S. Thompson)....With Obama surging in the polls Hillary Clinton is becoming shrill and doing her best to go negative as quickly as possible...back to the politics of personal destruction. I don't think Hillary understands that the public is tired of this kind of politics. The other thing that Hillary and company does not seem to understand is that what is happening in the Obama campaign is a movement has began to happen; a tidal wave of support to throw out the old tired same old in Washington and bring in a man who is projecting a message of positive feelings and hope to a new generation of voters and to those who have grown skeptical of the Washington elite of which Hillary Clinton has become the standard bearer. Watch the next 48 hours and you will see the Fear and Loathing come to the surface and her true self will start to be projected......Obama Fired up and ready to go!

Posted by: wayne_duke | January 6, 2008 11:19 PM

......and in the end, it will be Obama nad Edwards. The are the best pair at this time. Cheers to the American people and vote wisely this time.

Posted by: amctech | January 6, 2008 11:15 PM

The great irony is that the same charge of "inexperience" was levelled against Bill Clinton, Jack Kennedy, and Abe Lincoln.

The sad irony is that Bill and Hilary will have destroyed whatever positive reputation they still have by the end of this election.

Barak is drawing independents and republicans and the young. Hilary's support is mostly entrenched democrats over 50, and mostly women,....who really yearn for Bill.
We owe Hilary nothing. She's 4 years too late.

Hilary will only divide the country even further. She is incapable of inspiring anyone...regardless of how hard she works or however many years of experience she has.

Obama is the future. And if one of the most conservative and white states in the usa overwhelmingly voted for him in response to his brilliant organizing, the country is more than ready to elect him.

The notion that usa will not elect him based on his race has already been disproven.

Hilary supporters are going through the five stages of death, starting with denial. The sooner they get through all 5, the better.

Posted by: wpost4112 | January 6, 2008 11:14 PM

In my 60 years I have never seen such a media stampede to a candidate. Obama got 37 percent of Iowa's Democratic vote and the media is calling this a "revolution."
Even the conservative commentators are pushing for Obama--I assume because they think he would be the easiest Democrat to defeat.

I worry that Obama, if elected, is being set up for a fall. The expectations for him are already sky-high. It's like people think Obama's going to magically fix all these problems we've had for decades. How is he going to do this with only 2 years of experience in the Senate?

We might get the same end result as with Jimmy Carter, who was elected as an "outsider" after the scandals of the Nixon administration. Yet because of his "outsider" status he was ineffective as president, and just 4 years later the Republicans were back in the White House with Reagan.

Posted by: plovejoy | January 6, 2008 11:07 PM

Iowa is called lily-white. It DOES have a 2% black population. Iowa is described as a conservative state.

Some are stating that Obama can't get many whites to vote for him.

Let's do some math:

Iowa's population in 2000 was just over 2.9 million. The population of Iowa isn't growing, maybe declining, but let's say 2.9 million.

At 2%, that means about 58,000 or so blacks lived in Iowa in 2000, and the black population has stayed a constant per cent for several decades - let's presume that it didn't change much since 2000. That leaves us with about 60,000 black Iowans.

Let's also presume that more than 90% of Iowa's black population is registered in the Democratic Party. With about 1/3 of the population under 18, that would leave less than 40,000 black, Democratic-registered Iowans, and that is presuming that EVERY black in Iowa of voting age is registered to vote (highly, highly unlikely).

The Iowa Democratic caucuses drew more than 220,000 attendees. Obama received 39% of the caucus votes, or about 86,000.

If EVERY black, Democratic Iowan went to a caucus (highly, highly unlikely - has there ever been a state-wide vote where every person of some voting bloc voted?), and EVERY black Democratic Iowan voted for Obama (highly, highly unlikely - many voted for Hillary out of their respect for Bill, and Edwards because of the union vote), that still means that Obama received more white votes than black votes, a minimum of 45,000 white votes to about 40,000 black votes. When you consider all the factors, though, it is much more likely that 70,000 - 75,000, or even more, whites voted for Obama.

Anyone doubt Obama can't get white votes?

Posted by: critter69 | January 6, 2008 11:06 PM

I am hearing that Ron Paul will Be EXCLUDED from the Fox network debate, because Fox has far different veiws than R Paul. In other words Fox is not allowing Paul on the debate stage!

Posted by: matrox | January 6, 2008 10:49 PM



Posted by: harried | January 6, 2008 10:59 PM

My goodness, could you imagine The U.S. of A. having a president who is articulate, bright, accomplished AND who can both keep his fly zipped and who knows what the definition of "is" is? Whew, what a breath of fresh air that would be. Even though I voted for Slick Willie both times, and would cheefully do so again if he were running against W, the thought of having someone like Obama as an option is pretty exciting.
In case people have forgotten, we have actually have presidents who have cared about the the people who make up the country, and who have been effective. Think Lincoln, FDR, Truman, JFK (in spite of his flaws). May the best person win, in which case, we all win.

Posted by: svmoonshadow | January 6, 2008 10:58 PM

This numbers are welcome news, but not surprising - the more voters have learned about Senator Obama, the more convinced they are that he is not only intelligent, capable and ready to lead, but that he has exactly the kind of experience necessary to lead the country forward. Best of luck to Senator Obama in NH!

Posted by: maq1 | January 6, 2008 10:55 PM

Hey Gormannrpe:

Here is the article Hillary seems to have been quoting. Hillary operates her own fact check site that quotes a tiny section from the article and does not so much as link to the entire thing. I googled the phrase and came up with this in yahoo's cache. The article did not rely solely on Clinton people, but they were quoted.

Note that the article concludes that Obama "hasn't made any fundamental policy shifts". I don't remember Hillary mentioning that part.

By CHRISTOPHER WILLS, Associated Press Writer
Sat Dec 22, 4:22 PM ET

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - If he wanted, the Barack Obama of today could have a pretty good debate with the Barack Obama of yesterday.

They could argue about whether the death penalty is ever appropriate. Whether it makes sense to ban handguns. They might explore their differences on the Patriot Act or parental notification of abortion.

And they could debate whether Obama has flip-flopped, changed some of his views as he learned more over the years or is simply answering questions with more detail and nuance now that he is running for president.

The Democratic senator from Illinois hasn't made any fundamental policy shifts, such as changing his view on whether abortion should be legal. But his decade in public office and an Associated Press review of his answers to a questionnaire show positions changing in smaller ways.

Taken together, the shifts could suggest a liberal, inexperienced lawmaker gradually adjusting to the realities of what could be accomplished, first in the Illinois Legislature and then the U.S. Senate.

On the other hand, political rivals could accuse him of abandoning potentially unpopular views or of trying to disguise his real positions.

Take the death penalty.

In 1996, when he was running for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Obama's campaign filled out a questionnaire flatly stating that he did not support capital punishment. By 2004, his position was that he supported the death penalty "in theory" but felt the system was so flawed that a national moratorium on executions was required.

Today, he doesn't talk about a moratorium and says the death penalty is appropriate for "some crimes -- mass murder, the rape and murder of a child -- so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."

Then there's another crime-related issue, gun control.

That 1996 questionnaire asked whether he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. The campaign's answer was straightforward: "Yes." Eight years later, he said on another questionnaire that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable" but reasonable restrictions should be imposed.

His legislative record in Illinois shows strong support for gun restrictions, such as limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but no attempts to ban them. Today, he stands by his support for controls while trying to reassure hunters that he has no interest in interfering with their access to firearms.

Obama's presidential campaign contends that voters can't learn anything about his views from the 1996 questionnaire, which was for an Illinois good-government group known as the IVI-IPO. Aides say Obama did not fill out the questionnaire and instead it was handled by a staffer who misrepresented his views on gun control, the death penalty and more.

"Barack Obama has a consistent record on the key issues facing our country," said spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Even conservative columnists have said they'd scoured Obama's record for inconsistencies and found there were virtually none."

IVI-IPO officials say it's inconceivable that Obama would have let a staffer turn in a questionnaire with incorrect answers. The group interviewed Obama in person about his answers before endorsing him in that 1996 legislative race, and he didn't suggest then, or anytime since, that the questionnaire needed to be corrected, they said.

Since he came to Washington, one piece of legislation that raises questions is the USA Patriot Act, the security measure approved after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

When he ran for the Senate, Obama called the act a "shoddy and dangerous law" that should be replaced. After he took office, the Senate considered an update that Obama criticized as only a modest improvement and one that was inferior to other alternatives.

Still, Obama ended up voting for that renewal and update of the Patriot Act.

Another disputed issue is health care.

Obama was asked in the 1996 questionnaire whether he supported a single-payer health plan, in which everyone gets health coverage through a single government program. The response was, "Yes in principle," and probably best to have the federal government set up such a program instead of the state.

Today, health care is a hot issue, and Obama does not support creating a single government program for everyone. In fact, rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards have criticized his health proposal for potentially leaving millions of people uninsured because they wouldn't be forced to buy insurance.

Political analysts don't see much danger for Obama in the changes. They aren't major shifts akin to Republican Mitt Romney's changes on abortion and gun control, so voters aren't likely to see the senator as indecisive or calculating.

"I think they allow for some adjustment," said Dante Scala, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire. "It depends on whether they're changing the core of what they're about."

In the general election, the Republican nominee would be more likely to go after the first-term senator on another front.

"If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I don't think the Republicans will be attacking him on a particular issue," said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University. "They'd be attacking him on his experience."

Obama's Democratic opponents, concerned about turning off voters who dislike negative campaigning, haven't been aggressively using his shifts against him. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign does quietly argue that they amount to a pattern that should concern the public.

Clinton spokesman Phil Singer noted Obama's positions on handguns, health care and the Patriot Act. "Voters will ultimately decide whether these are significant shifts in his views or not," he said.

One area where Obama's campaign acknowledges his views have changed is on the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages. In January 2004, Obama said he was opposed to repealing the law. By February, one month later, he supported a repeal.

His campaign says Obama always thought the Defense of Marriage Act was a bad law but didn't believe it needed to be repealed. After hearing from gay friends how hurtful the law was, he decided it needed to be taken off the books.

Posted by: AgathaX | January 6, 2008 10:55 PM

Anyone who doubts Obama's solidity, convictions, and ability to bring people together should look at the way he worked his way up from Chicago to the senate.
Now wait a minute with this "WORKED HIS WAY UP" bit! No onus on Barack but:

In early opinion polls leading up to the Democratic primary, Obama trailed multimillionaire businessman Blair Hull and Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes.[42] However, Hull's popularity declined following allegations of domestic abuse.[42] Obama's candidacy was boosted by an advertising campaign featuring images of the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington and the late U.S. Senator Paul Simon; the support of Simon's daughter; and political endorsements by the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times.[43][44] Obama received over 52% of the vote in the March 2004 primary, emerging 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival.[45] His opponent in the general election was expected to be Republican primary winner Jack Ryan. However, Ryan withdrew from the race in June 2004, following public disclosure of child custody divorce records containing sexual allegations by Ryan's ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan.[46] In August 2004, with less than three months to go before election day, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[47] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination...
A lot of "THINGS" fell just right, huh?

Posted by: harried | January 6, 2008 10:53 PM

Anyone who doubts Obama's solidity, convictions, and ability to bring people together should look at the way he worked his way up from Chicago to the senate.
Now wait a minute with this "WORKED HIS WAY UP" bit!
In early opinion polls leading up to the Democratic primary, Obama trailed multimillionaire businessman Blair Hull and Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes.[42] However, Hull's popularity declined following allegations of domestic abuse.[42] Obama's candidacy was boosted by an advertising campaign featuring images of the late Chicago Mayor Harold Washington and the late U.S. Senator Paul Simon; the support of Simon's daughter; and political endorsements by the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times.[43][44] Obama received over 52% of the vote in the March 2004 primary, emerging 29% ahead of his nearest Democratic rival.[45] His opponent in the general election was expected to be Republican primary winner Jack Ryan. However, Ryan withdrew from the race in June 2004, following public disclosure of child custody divorce records containing sexual allegations by Ryan's ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan.[46] In August 2004, with less than three months to go before election day, Alan Keyes accepted the Illinois Republican Party's nomination to replace Ryan.[47] A long-time resident of Maryland, Keyes established legal residency in Illinois with the nomination...
A lot of "THINGS" fell just right, huh?

Posted by: harried | January 6, 2008 10:52 PM

I am hearing that Ron Paul will Be EXCLUDED from the Fox network debate, because Fox has far different veiws than R Paul. In other words Fox is not allowing Paul on the debate stage!

Posted by: matrox | January 6, 2008 10:49 PM

I was for someone else until I watched this and some of the debates.

This guy is the one to do the job.

Posted by: mawt | January 6, 2008 10:48 PM

If Obama became the nominee, I will certainly "stay home on the Election day, or vote for the Republican nominee." Obama is not JFK whom to me, was and always is an American Hero, one of the greatest presidents of the USA. Obama is a phony one.

Posted by: kp1943 | January 6, 2008 10:45 PM

Remember this? How prophetic as it came out several months ago. Totally captures the moment, no?

Posted by: gevans33 | January 6, 2008 10:44 PM

Thank you Iowa. You have ushered in a new age in American politics. We ask NH and the following states to help just as Iowa did.
Never before have I felt the way I did when I heard Sen. Obama speak after the Iowa caucuses. I have definitely never felt that after listening to Sen. Clinton's litany of achievements. Words do matter, words can mobilize a nation, words can invigorate an entire generation. Obama just proved it beginning with Iowa. God speed and good luck to the Obama campaign. We need this man to bring credibility back to the image of the United States--both within and outside of our national borders.
Vote Obama, show that words can change a nation.

Posted by: thalakottur | January 6, 2008 10:43 PM

I am a moderate democrat. I have read and followed the Clintons for years. They truly care about people and have constantly fought for the middle class. The world is such a mess and we truly need experience. I hate to say it but if it is McCain vs Obama, this democrat is going to vote republican.

Posted by: Chadders74 | January 6, 2008 10:41 PM

My prediction is that Obama will win the nomination, but will face unprecedented personal and racial attacks from the Republican machine, as well as internal sabotage from the Clintonite old guard that will never forgive him for taking the nomination away from Hillary.

If he can survive all of this, Obama will be a great president. Otherwise, look for at least four more years of Romney or Giuliani led assaults on our democracy (as McCain is far too decent and independent to be acceptable to the Republican machine, and therefore has little chance of actually winning the nomination).

Posted by: algasema | January 6, 2008 10:41 PM

NO more-
Hillary Clinton dynasty,
John McCain's Politics of Fear,
John Edward's Politics of Convenience,
Corrupted Health Industry.



Hillary Clinton and John Edwards Voted for War on Iraq.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.

Hillary Clinton supported Bush on aid to Pakistan for wrong reasons.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.

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

Barack Obama is a community organizer from the beginning and is honest person and refused to be a Trial Lawyer.





Posted by: jkojs | January 6, 2008 10:39 PM

Obama is the Democrats George Bush. Amiable, but hopelessly out of his depth.

Because Obama never says anything specific, do each person sees Obama as what they want him to be.

When Obama is forced to come up with specifics, a lot of his supporters are going to be very dissapointed.

Obama was a disaster in the debates.

I'm worried he's an "empty suit"

If I was hiring a President for a high-tech company, I'd hire Hillary over Obama in a heart-beat.

Hillary Cllnton would be a far better President of the united states.

Posted by: svreader | January 6, 2008 10:39 PM

rahaha, you say Barack looks ike a chimp? Well, you think like a chimp

Posted by: priceisright | January 6, 2008 10:38 PM

A chimp is better than a fool supporting the Born Again, Faith Based, Pro Life Lying War Criminal Mass Murderer Serial Killer in Chief.

All the way, O!!!

Posted by: mawt | January 6, 2008 10:35 PM

To Rahaha:

I favor the Clintons but the last thing they need is idiotic comments like yours. Your posting is so counterproductive to Hillary's candidacy that I have to conclude you are really in one of the other camps.

To Everyone Else:

My biggest problem with Barack Obama is that I fear he will prove to be a Jimmy Carter in office: right on almost all the issues but unable to assemble an effective operational coalition to put his policies into effect.

Carter expected the plain logic of his positions to carry the day with the American people and with the Washington establishment. I fear that Mr. Obama will have a comparable undue confidence in the power of his own rhetoric.

Adroit horse trading is what gets results in Washington--whether one likes it or not. The Kennedys and the Clintons were good at it and have been effective in many ways.

I will vote for Mr. Obama if he is the Democratic nominee, but I will have my fingers crossed. (Of course, I said much the same when I first voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.)

Posted by: wgmadden | January 6, 2008 10:35 PM

"Respondants now call Obama most likely to win in November" (WAPO) Wait a minute! This is the second WAPO article I have read insisting that Obama will be the new U.S. President. Unless it happened while I was asleep, in reality the political award for first prize, candidacy, has a long way to go before the final decision. Obama's total vote in the Iowa caucas was 37%--a sliver of democratic votes from a pig-farming agriculture state. This means 63% of Iowans voted for other Democrats. In a general election this would change the totals. I am becoming suspicious as to the motives of WAPO staff members, who appear to be propagandizing.

Posted by: zaney | January 6, 2008 10:34 PM

I never, ever thought, Hillary Clinton would introduce the race issue by saying, "Obama is not electable".
She did not explain her statement, just let the audience draw the inference.
I am a white, moderate democrat who is totally repulsed by her racist remark.

Posted by: bobnsri

Dear "WHITE BOB", you drew exactly the inference that a racist would draw, do you even realize that "WHITE BOB"!

Posted by: harried | January 6, 2008 10:32 PM

Obama wins in NH, then he is going all the way! Yay!

Go O!!!

Posted by: mawt | January 6, 2008 10:31 PM

You're an idiot. With people like you in Clinton's corner no wonder she's losing.

The Clinton's and the Democratic establishment better get used to the idea that the Democrats would rather lose with a guy they believe in rather than an establishment candidate who repulses them. The establishment, media and the Clinton's are the only ones who believe she's electable. To them I say "can you say McGovern".
For all of you who are using all kinds of innuendos about why Obama can't win, please remember to just change whatever you have to say that appeals to the worst of us and insert Clinton's name, because it's going to be just as despicable and sleazy and it is also the reason she can't win.
It's over for Hillary. That vaulted Clinton machine can't sell the most famous Democrat in the world and it can't defeat an inexperienced senator and yet this vaulted machine wants us to believe she can take on an win against the Republican sleaze machine in the general election.
To that I say "please get real".

Posted by: sbundley | January 6, 2008 10:30 PM

good for you bobnsri, you saw through the canard launched by HRC. HRC is getting more desperate and the real Shrill is coming out. Let her lose NH and SC; we will see one hot, ugly mess from that woman. GO, OBAMA!! RUN, OBAMA! WIN, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!!!

Posted by: meldupree | January 6, 2008 10:29 PM

HRC subtly plays the race card? Man, Herr Rove must be grinning like a Cheshire cat right now. Is he on HRC payroll?

Posted by: meldupree | January 6, 2008 10:23 PM

wow rahaha,
i thought the use of beastial references against black individuals would be too trite, too uncouth, too jim crow, too republican for someone claiming to be a hrc supporter.
i guess wrong.
as for spring rain, i think the general perception is that hrc is the entitled, arrogant, tightly wound one. i may be wrong, but if polls are right, the general public appears to agree with me.

Posted by: dL01 | January 6, 2008 10:23 PM

Hillary says she's been "making change for 35 years." Assuming she's a member of the union, send her back, then, to driving a public bus.

Posted by: filoporquequilo | January 6, 2008 10:22 PM

Sping Rain, i could'nt agree with you more. Well said. About Obama... greg...

Posted by: gre45 | January 6, 2008 10:18 PM

Anyone who doubts Obama's solidity, convictions, and ability to bring people together should look at the way he worked his way up from Chicago to the senate. Excellent balance of academic reflection and action in the real world. Hillary's purpose and resume are the ones that looks a bit empty by comparison. It's great to see that New Hampshire is as excited about Obama as Iowa was. I wish Edwards would receive more recognition, too, though.

Posted by: steventatum750 | January 6, 2008 10:17 PM

Obama is drawing people to him in droves because of his experience - his experience in coalition building as a community organizer in the south side of Chicago and in the Illinois senate. Voters of all races, gender and age are struck by his sincerity and his commitment to saying what he believes and not what is politically expedient.

That's why he is "Change We Can Believe In" rather than the hollowness of Clinton's promise of "change". She was surrounded by Albright, Gen. Clark and Bill during her Iowa concession speech while Obama was surrounded by a true rainbow of supporters - none of them Washington insiders. How refreshing!

Posted by: carol | January 6, 2008 10:16 PM


Nice job avoiding real issues and instead spouting ignorant racism.

Posted by: kdavoust | January 6, 2008 10:16 PM

Obama can bring the country together - he proved it in Iowa. As a woman I would have loved to vote for the first woman president but I think it will have to wait. After all, Hilary, Sen. Obama has no less foreign policy experience that Bill had when he was elected and he was one of our more effective presidents in foreign policy.

Posted by: nbriggs | January 6, 2008 10:16 PM

Is there anyone here who can document the following: during last night's debate, hillary clinton quoted an AP story as saying something like "senator obama could have a debate with himself" ... the the exact words.
senator obama went on to note that this was not AP's own voice but rather AP quoting a clinton spokesperson. CAN ANYONE PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION OF THE TRUTH OF THIS MATTER. NOT A SMALL POINT

Posted by: gormannrpe | January 6, 2008 10:16 PM

Spring Rain,

Whats your real name, Hillary Clinton? Karl Rove?

Posted by: apoxprism | January 6, 2008 10:13 PM

IMO the Democrats will lose if HRC wins in this election.The Clintons IMO have to much going against them to come out ahead.hillary not faceing up to facts and hiding them and Mr Clinton,slick willie what can I say he gave someone that owed our government thousnads of dollars in taxes a pass by giving him a pardon.The Clinton years were not all that good. He made a mockery of our presidencity in other countries.

Posted by: bennie1 | January 6, 2008 10:13 PM

Does anyone else agree that Obama Hussein looks like a chimp with those ridiculous ears?

You go Hillary, go girl!

Posted by: rahaha | January 6, 2008 10:09 PM

The Irish guy has momentum--Barry O'Bama!

Posted by: mark | January 6, 2008 10:09 PM

I think any Democratic canidate can beat any Republican, but I like the way Obama is bring people into the process. I want a real uniter not divider decider in the white house.

Posted by: bradcpa | January 6, 2008 10:05 PM

I always believed the "race" issue would be injected into the campaign by republicans if Obama were to be the nominee.

I never, ever thought, Hillary Clinton would introduce the race issue by saying, "Obama is not electable".

She did not explain her statement, just let the audience draw the inference.

Shame, shame, shame on Hillary.

If Hillary would run spots that "spoof her" like her Christmas spot, I think she would be in better shape. (Her Christmas spot, was both funny yet made a strong point)

I am a white, moderate democrat who is totally repulsed by her racist remark.

I have contacted her campaign to cancel my $100 a month contribution. Its all going to Obama from now on.

Posted by: bobnsri | January 6, 2008 10:04 PM


a) you're projecting

b) stop shouting

Posted by: bogera | January 6, 2008 10:03 PM

This is wonderful news for America. Thank you New Hampshire. Don't forget to vote!

Barack Obama is the country's best chance to bring everyone together to deal with the challenges we face. We won't all agree about everything but we can agree to work together to make things right.

Posted by: edhere | January 6, 2008 10:00 PM

This campaign is really getting interesting; I had a feeling that "the polls" were going to be proven wrong in Iowa, and they were. What's most fascinating is how the public is going against the preconceived ideas that Big Media had regarding race/gender polarization, e.g. most women DONT support Hilary, just because she's a woman, and Obama won a caucus in a state that more than 95% white. I think it's because folks are looking for (a) someone new and (b) someone who, at least from the impression they give from soundbytes would do a good job. I like Obama on both counts, and I think many, many people are tired of the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton sequence. I know Big Media doesn't like it, but Obama has a serious, serious chance to be not only the first "minority" nominee, but he just might get elected.

Posted by: southbayguy51 | January 6, 2008 9:59 PM


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

Posted by: Spring_Rain | January 6, 2008 9:59 PM

The press should be ashamed for its refusal to cover all the candidates fairly. Dennis Kucinich should have been included in the ABC New Hampshire debate. And it is shameful that Joe Biden's withdrawal from the campaign was not even covered.
Shame on you, big media.

Posted by: alexandermontecino | January 6, 2008 9:58 PM

Senator Clinton denigrated the power of speech in a democracy in last night's debate in New Hampshire. But she should remember this ...

When Cicero finished speaking, the people said, "My, how well he spoke." When Demosthenes finished speaking the people said, "Let us march!"

Candidates should strive to emulate Demosthenes. (It gets us fired up and ready to go ;)

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 6, 2008 9:58 PM

Let us hope that Obama-Drama finds some substance for his vision.

Posted by: rmctwo | January 6, 2008 9:55 PM

Team Obama, keep your eyes on the ball. Don't get cocky and stay to the high road; you'll be fine.

To The Clintonistas, just go away. The retooling and spinning just makes everyone dizzy. And then those nasty, negative attacks in their various iterations . . . that is why HRC is getting her backside kicked by voters. We are tired of the mess and refuse to submit to the same insanity with the expectation of a different outcome. We demand better and darn it, better we will get!

Posted by: meldupree | January 6, 2008 9:51 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company