The thing that's most impressive about Giuliani so far is that he is winning without ANY major media support. CNN is predictably giving the most support to Clinton and Obama but Fox News has yet to support Giuliani at all. He is doing this all by himself.

Once the Republican base realizes that Giuliani is their ONLY chance to win in 2008, his numbers will skyrocket. Once he starts receiving the media suport of other candidates I am guessing that he will have a pretty good shot to win the whole thing.

Jamal you may be right in your analysis about Clinton's Iraq vote, but unformunately part of "the game" is also that what you do goes down on record, whatever the reason. It's hard to argue that "well it was an emotional time so I didn't really think the situation through". No one can say what Obama would have done had he been in the Senate, but everyone was under pressure to support the war, and he spoke out. I think he deserves credit.

Bravo Obama, the immense grassroot support is paying off. I sincerely thing your approach on foreign policy is genuine and makes alot of sense, it is outrageous to thing u despise your enemies is any strategy, Just like the Bush-Cherney like policy while your enemies are building up arsenals under your watchful eyes Iran is gradually going becoming a Nuclear power, North korea, thank God atleast North korea is engaged in open talks now and is paying off.

Where is Paul for republicans? considering he is doing so well? Where is Ron Paul. I bet his point of views and better than Romney, Guiliani and Thompson. So, why is it that CNN does not list him???

Glad to see the race tightening. BTW, looks like the Clinton blog is heavily censored - only glowing comments by automatons seem to be allowed. I tried to post a concern re. Clinton on there and it hasn't been posted. Quite disturbing. Very different from the Obama blogs - lots of cheerleaders but opposition is clearly allowed.

Allen, your comments show your ignorance. This is why this country is sinking in quick sand. Classless and worthless comment.

Re: Kathy Callan's comment that John Edwards is an advocate for the common man because he's a trial lawyer is ridiculous. He drives up our insurance costs and the cost of everything else by pursuing exorbitant damages in (many) liability cases where things just happen because life is not fair. We, society as a whole, cannot make progress if everyone (and his lawyer) gets rich off someone else's dime.

IA NH SC
Clinton 26-34% 27-35% 25-33%
Edwards 17-25% 10-18% 14-22%
Obama 11-19% 27-35% 29-37%

IA NH SC
Giuliani 18-26% 23-31% 24-32%
McCain 13-21% 6-14% 6-14%
Romney 17-25% 22-30% 3-11%
F. Thompson 9-17% 9-17% 23-31%

Margin of error applied. Who beats who?
Clinton wins IA. Clinton-Obama split in NH. Obama takes SC.
Rom and Giu split IA and NH. Thom and Giu split NC.

To me, Obama is a visionary leader. He has far more experience in the real world than Clinton or any of the other candidates. Everything I hear and read about him furthers this. He was a civil rights attorney, he worked to rise people above their stations. He is the kind of leader that comes along once a generation if we’re lucky. I’ve just read “the Audacity of Hope” and it was so stirring, so clear, so clearly written not by a ghost writer but in the voice of the man himself. Barry Obama is the real deal, he’s the sort of fighter that we need oh so desperately in these trying times. I would go door to door for this candidate, I would believe he would look at any issue either foriegn or domestic with clear eyes and make decisions that were both humane and smart for our country and the world. The other candidates all strike me as fodder for lobbists, career politicians. I remember how moved I was when I heard his speech during Kerry’s convention. He is indeed a uniter, someone who can bring this sadly divided dis union back into union again. People will put paintings and photos on their walls of this man in the same way they do JFK or MLK. Mark my words, America and the world will prosper under President Obama. To see that happen I’d gladly travel to Ohio, to South Carolina, to Iowa, or anywhere else I needed to go to ensure he gets a fair shot. That’s all the man needs, is one good fair shot. Given his due he’ll do us right. Do the research. Don’t be a lemming. Read about him, read his own words. They aren’t sound bites, they’re living, breathing, human thoughts full of compassion and common sense, stength and integrity. Really look at this candidate. Do your kids and their kids the biggest favor of our lives.

If the roles had been reversed, CNN (Clinton News Network) would have put at the top, "Clinton Shows Gains In Two of Three Early States." but Barack gets no such break. The more people get to know him, the stronger he will become. The ugly remnants of racism in this country - How big are they is the only question.

Why are these polls so very different then all the other polls I have heard about in the last week? I though Edwards was winning Iowa handily, with Obama trailing substantially in South Carolina. I am pretty sure MSNBC has very different polls (I think I saw it on sundays meet the press).

It looks like Republicans are crossing over to poll for Clinton because they think she'll be easier to beat.

So Jamal, if I understand you, we should forgive Clinton for voting for the war because she was playing politics? I'd think we want a President that does what's right, and not what is politically safe.

I do wonder how Obama would have voted if he was in the Senate in 2003, but there's no use speculating.

On the other hand, based on the same poll report, HRC had a big margin lead over Obama in Arizona, Florida and Colorado. And, the democratic primary voters for the "national primary" favors HRC (38%)over Obama (25%).

I am a democrate and I will not vote for Hillary both in primary and general election. If it's Obama, I will vote for him. If not, my vote is for Rudy Guliani. There is something about this woman that I don't like. In her speeches, she comes as dry and shrewd minded.

Oh, so the other candidates' numbers aren't worth mentioning? Is this because those other candidates are more progressive, more experienced, and have more honest and important things to say about our country?

By the other candidates I mean Joe Biden. But I'm sure there are supporters of other media-slighted candidates who are also fatigued with the media's injection of bias into this campaign so early on.

Campaign-fatigue? No. Pre-packaged-bias-fatigue.

I think that you will find different poll numbers if you go to other polling groups such as Rasmussen, who has Hillary way ahead. But I think that any 3 of the top Democrat candidates would make great Presidents. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton would make great presidents. In this day and age you are not voting for a person, you are voting for a set of political issues. All of the Democrats stand for the same core beliefs and issues. You are also voting for Supreme Court Justices in addition to the President, so keep that in mind when you vote. The democrats are the party of the people, the party of the individual, the party of the working class and of the poor. The democrats stand for the moral values of peace and not war, fairness and not fear, for freedom and not fascism. The democrats are the party of the environment, of a balanced budget, and for giving tax cuts to the middle class and the poor as opposed to giving tax breaks to the wealthiest of americans. The democrats will nominate supreme court justices who rule in favor of individual rights and freedoms as opposed to the rights of big corporations and the rights of states and other forms of government. The democrats want to find cures for diseases using stem cell research, research that could save millions of lives and cure thousands of diseases. Do I like abortion? Of course not, no one does. But abortion should be a private issue, not a political issue. The government should not be able to tell a women what she can and can not do with her body and her reproductive organs. The democrats are the party that has real moral values. Cure diseases, help the middle class and the poor, fight poverty, keep social security the way it is so elderly people can have that nest egg to fall back on, affordable health care so people do not have to choose between putting a roof over their head and paying for their prescription medicine, investing money for health care, education, and to help people here in the United States as opposed to investing billions of dollars on this uneccesary and disgraceful war in Iraq. The republicans biggest welfare program is giving free money to corporations, and giving free money to wage war. Feed the rich, and hate the poor. That is the republican motto. The republicans hate welfare, the kind of welfare that helps kids to eat in the morning and go to school, but they love free money (welfare) to give to corporations and to wage war. That is a very hypocritical set of moral beliefs to have. Check out my Homepage Website: http://www.greatestofalltime.homestead.com/intropage.html and vote Democrat in 2008!

Looks like Hill's bulldog attack on Obama the day after the debate did her a lot of good, huh!

Not too smart of her to remind people why they hate her so much!

If she's not careful, Mr. Obama will be getting the honor of getting taken to the woodshed by Rudy G in the general election.

Jamal…Making the tough decisions is called leadership. Not just going along with the crowd.

Thank you for making the point we all have been saying…she lacks leadership

Obammy, he's yo' mammy
do dah, do dah

well, let me make some thing clear here, when the war started in Iraq which was supported by Ms.Clinton, because it was a lot of emotional and pariotism act. no one would have said no, when it they saw the 911 impacts on the society. see, if Ms.Clinton would have said no, then it would have been relexed different impacts on her political career. because she is already popular figure. In compare to Mr. Obama who was a rear politian who wasn't known to anybody. I mean whatever he would said then no one would give importance. but Ms.Clinton say something, then it is always a front line story….. Don't hate the player, hate the game…..

CNN needs a copy editor.

John Edwards is leading in Iowa, according to the Des Moines Register's latest poll, which has Edwards leading Hillary Clinton by a margin of 27% to 22%. Once again, CNN and the corporate media choose to ignore Edwards. The last thing the corporate media wants in the White House is a trial attorney who cares about the common man and who spent his life fighting corporate abuse. That's why we need him in the White House. Go, John!

"New" polls because the old ones showed that Americans want Ron Paul?

To EMS in Minneapolis (I'm also in MPLS by the way)- The misspell of Guliani is the least of their problems with this ticker story. Originally, they were reporting, with the same data you see now, that Clinton led in all three of those states. I guess the fact checking team at CNN is as sleepy as I am at my cube.

To Robert in Nevada- I agree that it is most annoying that the entire Western United States is not represented in this poll. It makes no sense that states are arbitrarily chosen to represent such an important and influential part of our Presidential Nomination process.

Bush, Clinton, dynasty is getting old. Obama or Romney only chance for a change I believe.

wow. I can't wait to hear the analysis on this. I thought HC won the debate. But I think he handled the post debate debate well.

Has starting a feud with Obama actually helped him this drastically?

BTW, I'm rooting for Obama, though I am surprised he hasn't been masacred by HC. Perhaps she has been over estimated.

Does anyone have post debate national polls?

What about Nevada? South Carolina will be caucusing after the silver state. Your dismissal of western opinions is at least annoying, and at worst dismissive of an entire region. And, yes, I am from Nevada.

Giulinai ahead in IA, NH, and SC

Spell check, please.