Yes, this is the problem with Clinton. Even some Democratic voters despise her. How will she overcome this? What is her plan? It is precisely because she fought the GOP so long, that she is divisive. Whereas Obama has independent appeal, Clinton wins their disdain. I won't understand the thinking of the party if they support her. Living in Nevada I know that she is the wrong choice if we want to win. Obama knows how to reach out in a bipartisan way. He has crossover appeal. Clinton does not.

voter participation rates in this country ARE shamefully low. whether hillary can bring more people under the tent is certainly less than obama's.

Just what we need. Another polarizing president…

Hope for Obama!

Unite our country Obama!!

Hillary Clinton is by far a more acceptable choice than anyone that the Republicans will be putting out. However, the problem will be on voter turnout. She can energize the Republican base to vote like no other candidate. They will turn out in mass just to vote against her. At the same time she will turn off a lot of white male democrat voters who will probably stay at home rather than vote for her. John Edwards continues to be the logical choice for the democrat party. He has a lot of voter support in the democrat party and he doesn't energize the republican base.

Hillary is a "hate me or love me" politician, and we have had our fair share of this already. She is too calculated, too rehearsed, too non-authentic, too, well, political if that makes any sense. The problem with our politics today is we can't seem to find the compromise and nothing is getting done. Our president can't get anything done, Congress can't get anything done, and just about the entire country is fed up with it. Why should we believe if Hillary is elected she would do anything different? Her outlook on politics is absolutely no different that anyone else that has been in DC longer than one term. We need a real change to the way our country and our elected officials look at the problems we face. If we don't do it now, then when?

Hillary Clinton is nothing but a Bush-lite. We need fresh thoughts, new direction. The Clintons and Bush Co. are one in the same. Bill Clinton gave BushCo all of the firepower it has today. Bush Sr. made statements earlier on that he knew that Hillary would have to make discrediting statements against WBush in order to gain footing on the Democratic ticket, "that is just part of politics". We need to get rid of this mindset and elect a credible individual as president. Hillary Clinton is not that person.

It looks like the Democratic leadership is going to allow Republicans to select the Democratic Party's candidate.

Why not take it all the way and ask Gingrich to manage the Democratic campaign?

No one wants to take back the government worse than me - but a tofu candidate doesn't really bode well for returning us to the 21st century.

To Len - I suppose Obama as a BLACK man is not divisive? Whether they will admit it or not, there are ALOT of people who will not vote for a Black person for president.

I can't vote for the Democrat at the bottom of the ticket because they have been poor choices in my area. I have been Independent for over 20 years and I would not support Obama but I might vote for Clinton. I don't vote the party but consider the issues and I would favor Ron Paul over Obama but could not support either for president.

I am male, I am straight. I am not American. Therefore I cannot vote.

Take note Americans: your "glass ceiling" is about to fall on you.

Ms Rodham Clinton's presidency would be good news for the rest of the world; regardless of your shortsightedness at home.

Shame on you all so called pundits.Mrs Clinton is the best and most qualified seeking the office of the presidency.They said Bill was young with a lot of baggages and he won.They said Bush was naive,unserious and daddy's boy and he won!They said Al Gore was stiff and emotionless and he won the popular vote.Whatever happened to the San Francisco Liberal that is now the Speaker of the House?Let people live with the idea of Madam President of the United States Of America-Mrs Hilary Rodham Clinton!She is the best for that office.Shame on all haters!

That is the problem with the political machines. The question they ask isn’t “Are you our best choice to lead the free world?” They want to know “What can you do for US?” I’m sick of this whole charade and don’t believe there is a candidate out there that cares about me. I paid $6.79 for a gallon of milk in a grocery store yesterday. Think I can afford $1556.00 per month for health insurance? I wish Lou Dobbs would run, and if you read this Al Gore, PLEASE HELP US.

Another hatchet-job, complete with stern looking photo.
Rassmussen reports completely contradicts the poll referenced in the AP piece here;

Among all voters, Clinton is currently viewed favorably by 50% and unfavorably by 48%. Views of Clinton have remained evenly divided all year.

For Obama, the current numbers among all voters are 48% favorable and 42% unfavorable. This is the second survey in a row where Obama’s favorable rating has been below 50%. Prior to these surveys, it had been above 50% all year, peaking at 58% in May. This is also the third consecutive weekly survey in which Obama’s unfavorables have topped 40%. Prior to the past three weeks, that had happened only once in all of 2008.”

"Still, Clinton remains extraordinarily popular among Democrats. Seventy-nine percent (79%) offer a favorable opinion of her including 39% with a Very Favorable opinion. Within her own Party, just 20% have an unfavorable opinion. For Obama, the reviews are solid, but not as spectacular—66% favorable and 23% unfavorable. Matching Clinton, Obama is now viewed Very Favorably by 39% of Democratic voters. For Clinton, these reviews are little changed from a week ago. For Obama, the number with an unfavorable opinion has declined somewhat."

While Hillary could certainly make a good political leader and likely get things done, she is not likely to win over the hearts of a vast majority of Americans. We need a candidate who can gain favorability or at least likability with a strong, say, 70% of the country after the dismal popularity dive of George W. Bush. We can't have another heavily polarizing president.

I think the best candidate right now is Obama: he hasn't been around long enough to have a high unfavorability rating, he stands with the vast majority of the voting public on issues like the war, healthcare, and other issues, and he's a charismatic individual who, despite his "inexperience," can likely make considerable progress in solving the social and political problems of the United States.

WOW!

I'm impressed that CNN has finally decided to present the truth of the matter regarding Hillary's historically high negative ratings and the fact that she will no doubt inspire the Republican party to unite behind their candidate (who will undoubtedly be Giuliani).

Also saw Bill Schneider on CNN this morning talking about the major problems presented by the fact that Hillary is so unlikeable to a substantial segment of the population. She is loathed by ALL Republicans. She will have major problems with the indepedent voters because these voters are the most discriminating of all and they will not stand for her antics of saying one thing, then directly contradicting herself and trying to carefully explain it away. This story further highlights her problems with Democrats who understand her polarizing nature..

Truebob:

Are you saying that our free market economy should be scrapped and government should step in and set prices for things we purchase? Surely you have not thought this through…

Before the end of her first Senate term, 49 Republican Senators had authored and co-sponsored legislation with Hillary Clinton. She now counts as friends many of the conservatives that in the 90s had all but called her a murderer and a thief. Clearly, if Hillary can change the minds of Trent Lott and Jesse Helms, then she can change the minds of independent voters that have only been fed the Limbaugh line for all these years.
While she was first lady, Hillary had the unenviable task of defending Bill while protecting her daughter from the press. She wasn't speaking for herself, then, she was defending her family.
As a Senator, the national media only focused on her opposition comments as part of the Democratic minority. However, the NY state media covered all of her positions and efforts on behalf of the state. Therefore, to get a true feel of how voters will respond to Hillary when she is speaking for herself, one should look at New York. In New Yorks, Hillary carried even rural, "conservative", upstate, Republican districts.
The Republicans are going to find that they did themselves no favors by painting her as the female Hitler. When people see Hillary on her own terms they easily see that she is not the shrill, liberal, harpie, that the hate crowd has made her out to be. Because the right wing has demonized her it creates a situation where Billy Graham calling her "warm and spiritual" makes the front page. The right-wing has set expectations of her personality so low, that all Hillary has to do to change perceptions is just to show up at an event without, say, her eyes glowing red or killing people in the crowd.
Hillary will the first candidate to ever have her negatives substantially fall during the course of a campaign. This phenomona is already happening. So Democratic legislators shouldn't be worried, they should be ecstatic about having her at the top of the ticket. If after 15 years of demonization, the right wing couldn't make her unfavorables as high a George W. Bush's or Newt Gingrich's, then they won't stand a chance when Hillary actually has a chance to respond on her own behalf, and the public actually has a chance to see this great, warm, strong, and effective leader for themselves.

Democratic fears about Hillary Clinton, yet the Party big wigs say that despite these fears, they will still support her. This is the age-old trick of the Democrats, against themselves: nominate a candidate who cannot win a national election.

Although not an American, if I was a voter my concern about Clinton is whether much of the world would treat her as a president in her own right or if she will be overshadowed by the stature and popularity of her husband on the world stage. A president with the qualification that she is foremost the wife of Bill would diminish her role and may be more of a handicap than a positive.

Just a thought.

Thank you for finlly mentioning something about this topic. I'm a 20 year old college student with many freinds whos interest in politics has been rejuvinated during Bush's administration, and are looking to 2008 to make a difference. Of the people I know, including myself, we are most certainly not going to vote Republican, but few of us would vote for Hillary Clinton either. We feel that a change is necessary, but that Hillary Clinton would not be the person to do that. I don't have anything against women in politics, but I just do not like the lady. She comes off as if she has to prove herself when she's 'with the big biys' and it turns moderate-liberal independents like myself away from her. In our country's present situation of polarized politics, she seems to further that trend by polarizing herself to the left, leaving the door open for another administration of nonpartinship if she were to be elected. I tend to vote Democrat, but if she gets the nomination, I'll have to start looking at 3rd party candidates.

The Obama Truth Squad is at it again!

Senator Clinton has her troubles, as do all the candidates Republican and Democrat alike. However, she has far and away demonstrated more leadership and thoughtfulness about the issues than any other candidate.

It seems that every time an opportunity presents itself to either slam Hilary, or god forbid, someone should criticize Barak; the truth squad comes out in force—–just like they did for Bush. Are they the same crew?

If the Democrats continue to ravage each other this far ahead of the primaries and the general election, god help us on election day.

Christian, Palmetto FL

From Rasmussen Reports 8/10/07;

"For Obama, the current numbers among all voters are 48% favorable and 42% unfavorable. This is the second survey in a row where Obama’s favorable rating has been below 50%. Prior to these surveys, it had been above 50% all year, peaking at 58% in May. This is also the third consecutive weekly survey in which Obama’s unfavorables have topped 40%. Prior to the past three weeks, that had happened only once in all of 2008.”

I do think that the Democratic party needs to take a look at who they have running against the Republican party. We have to all take note so that we don't end up with anymore of what we have been living with for the past six years. I don't think our country can survive any longer with neocons or anyone that represents what our current government is. Let's not be blind to the deception that has been running the show. I feel that Clinton will be more of the same; as will Guiliani. We need someone who can unite our country and bring back the freedoms and peace we lost during this administration. I personally don't care to have anyone who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war in the white house. Edwards and Clinton both voted yes. Obama would be a nice change, but our biased country may look at skin color instead of what a person represents. The Democratic party needs to really be smart about who they run so that the needed change does happen. Compared to the rest of the world's progressive nations, we are slipping in too many important areas….infant mortality, life expectancy, education, healthcare, views towards global warming and our current government is too divisive to get anything accomplished.

It is a nightmare scenario. We'll hear all about the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Vince Foster, the travel office et al. With Edwards or Obama, the Democrats would have a strong candidate who doesn't scare or anger a full third of the electorate. Do the math, read the polls etc.

Add the fact that she has none of Bill's redeeming qualites plus comes over as shrill and canned and there's a receipe for disaster!

It's not only about the nomination, it's about the election. I will strongly support Obama, Edwards, Biden or whomever, but I will vote for the GOP candidate if it is the choice of that or Hillary.

The real issue is that main stream America is concerned that Clinton has a good chance of winning the presidency which means that she will break the white male hegemony that American has has dominated American politics for years. No one really beleives that Brack Obama can win; that's why mainstream American loves him so much. Those who support Obama are mostly young white professionals who make $75,000 a year and above; those who can afford to "turn the page."

poster Alex Wells of New Orleans,

those are some of the most reasonable, well-thought out remarks about Hillary I've seen. I have been surprised and impressed with her consummate ability to connect with audiences, and to come across not only as sincere and capable, but also as rational and non-combative. She does not disparage other candidates but instead seems to rely on her own superior abilities and characteristics to tell her story. I agree with others, that once she is the nominee she will create a nice coattail effect for other Dems. The contrast between the image of Hillary trumpeted by the conservatives, and the reality of this very capable and strong person is striking. Let's not let the conservative spin machine lay waste to our opportunity to put this great candidate into office - she will make us proud.

This article was obviously written by a conservative republican. What is hurting the lower-rung demoratic candidates is the rush by several states to make their primaries too early. This shortens the time for front-runners to stumble and for relatively weak campaigns to gather steam. I may or may not vote for Sen. Clinton, but I do wish the media would be more honest in their analysis.

Can anybody name a single thing MS Clinton has done for America (other than promote her political image)?

Time's up . . . Did you come up with anything?

Republican or Democrat, I want a qualified, experienced, intelligent, trustworthy leader who will get America back on track. I also want someone who is smart enough to deal "in the moment if/when there's another terrorist incident or some other unexpected occurrence comes up that we've never dealt with before. I simply see no other candidate on either side of the aisle that would do more for America and we'd be lucky to have her. For those who don't like her, because we have so much to gain from her, they should take another look at why they don't like her and "just because" doesn't count. We need specifics. I say this because last time we voted based on who we would prefer to have a beer with last time; so this time we need a proven leader with a resume to clean up Bush's blunders. To the media: this post is exactly how you operate with regard to Hillary and you must stop and give her a fair shake instead of black balling her like this.

I vote historically democrat but I can't see voting for Mrs. Clinton. She's polarizing, wishy washy. She still has not articulated anything other than her husband used to be president..She doesn't seem to have a vision. If she wins the nomination, I'll stay home. Winning at all cost is not a legitimate reason to vote for anyone if they don't represent what I believe…

I've been monitoring the comments, most of which are anti-Clinton and pro Obama. Taking CNN power into consideration i'm not surprised if Obama's campaign strategically place a few people maybe 50 or so from his campaign to post anti- Clinton comments on here. also strategically putting pressure on CNN to modify the manner in which they report on the success of the Clinton campaign. I'm dissapointed in CNN for allowing this from 50-70 people whom are not reflective of the entire nation. Don't change what you report and how you report it because of a few Obama waganist.

The inevitable nomination of Hillary Clinton guarantees that the Republicans will win the Presidency in 2008 and will probably take back Congress as well. Face it: she's the most hated woman in America. The Republicans could run a Chimpanzee and a nose-picking toddler against her and mop the floor with her. Hillary's candidacy is likely to be the end of the Democratic Party altogether. If she could get her ego out of the way, she would see that and would withdraw her candidacy.

Considering the fact that Hillary Clinton encouraged her husband's "do-nothing" attitude about the genocide which took place in Bosnia during his administration, and regarding which he had full and timely knowledge(see "A Problem From Hell-America And The Age Of Genocide" by Samantha Powers), she represents hypocrisy at its worst. We should have as president a person who is not afraid to fight evil in the world. Shame on both of the Clintons!

I will vote for Obama in the primaries, but it is most likely that Clinton will win the nomination. Despite the neoconservative dislike for Hillary, not all republicans are insane. She will get support from independents and thoughtful republicans (who have been betrayed by the neocons).

She will also have lots of money to spend and that will allow her to throw as much or more mud at the republicans as they can throw at her.

The democrats are not tearing each other up as some would have us believe, they are barely criticizing each other at all. I think it has been quite civilized.

If Obama doesn't win the nomination I will vote for Clinton. Assuming Clinton's campaign does not do something unethical. For example, if the going gets close for the nomination and Clinton does something dirty to Obama or Edwards, that would be a big turnoff.

Al Gore will step in when it becomes clear that Obama is out and Hillary will be an electoral disaster. A Gore/Obama ticket is the winning one for the Dems.

Some? I would say many. No disrespect to the Senator, but a vote for her is a vote for the Republican Party. This from a lifelong Democrat.

Remember the "Clinton fatigue" that resulted in Al Gore's narrow defeat? I believe that it is still very much a factor. Bill was fond of saying that a vote for him was a vote for her. That certainly hasn't changed and even assuming a Clinton-Obama ticket, I really don't think that enough Democrats and left-leaning independents will be enough to elect her.

Nice to know the American public cares more about the gender and race of the president than they do about anything else. I guess it won't matter to those who oppose the war and want the troops home because they'll vote for a candidate to keep us embroiled in a war we don't belong in simply because she is a Woman and Barrack Obama is black. Let India be a great lesson, they are far ahead of us where the times are concerned THEY'VE elected a WOMAN for president!! Good luck Hillary.

This is the problem with the unorganized democrats. They are all attacking the clear frontrunner, just as they did to Howard Dean. What will happen - AGAIN - is they will drag down their best candidate and go to the election with their #2 as their nomination. It didn't work last time and it won't work now. At least the republicans were able to support their #1 and hand him the presidency. Lack of unity is going to destroy this party…again.

2008 is the year for the democrats to regain the White House. But I agree that the only candidate that can unify the republican party and get it out to vote is Hillary Clinton. I'm not so happy with the candidates of my party, but I would vote, if I could, for any republican who faces Hillary in November 2008. The "vast right-wing conspiracy" will be incredibly active against her. And this time, they will be right.

Wow,
In all my years of voting I have made one significant observation about the democratic party. They get so wrapped up in fringe left elements and assorted proclaimed free spirits that they would rather be heard arguing about their pet causes than unifying and win under the best choice. The republicans learned this a long time ago and capitalized on it repeatedly.

Listen closely - one of the reasons the US is having so much trouble on the world stage, and the reason our standing in the worlds eyes has dropped so much - is because we elected a president who had zero foreign policy experience - not to mention the perceived inability to speak intelligently on issues.

OK Obama is charismatic and is an excellent speaker who is thoughtful and quick on his feet. However he has zero foreign policy experience, and we don't have time for on the job fumbling with him, after 8 years of Bush fumbles. He might be a "fresh breath of air" or "an outsider" however, we need to wake up folks, this is not some movie, this is our lives we are talking about. I don't want a plaster saint or inexperienced individual running the country. I want a very experieced insider who can get in the dogpit in Washington from day 1 and reach compromises rapidly, working the politicians as needed (yes folks everything is a compromise and always has been - read your history). That insider is Hillary and her advisor Bill.

We are at a very low point in world respect and like it or not we have to have that on our side in this global world. Hillary is very talented, well-spoken and does have exposure and experience on the world stage, she and her Bill are very respected worldwide no matter what anyone here thinks and we need that more than ever.

This "don't be devisive with a candidate" is the same characteristic that led to them losing in 2004, with what should have been a landslide versus what had already been done by the current administration. The Dem campaign then let the republicans back them into a corner by constantly trying to paint Kerry as a coward and flip-flopper. Kerry should have come out swinging and hard at Bush ANG non service record every time anything was said about Kerry. Instead, we had the don't be devisive, blah blah. Way to go guys, get ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again.

Get behind Hillary, and come out swinging every time you get a republican Carl Rove type slime campaign against her. I know every republican candidate out there has skeletons, dust them off, use them and come out swinging… and take a page from Roves book, let the dems get a backstage man like Rove to put this kind of stuff out. Hit hard and often as needed, let them know that if they put something out or try to take moral high ground by diminishing Hillary, that the dems will fight back just as hard, and not try to explain or justify the slime charge against her.

The republicans figured out the first objective is to win the election, not some stupid argument. Focus on key issues, not fringe issues. Don't be hijacked by the vocal extremist elements, these small bands are our local freak shows and do not amount to the voting power needed to get elected. If they were Ralph Nader would be president right? That would have been a disaster in itself.

So what if Hillary polarizes the republicans? She will also polarize the democrats, besides explain to me how the current crop of republican front runners can justify their positions to the right wing extremes? We have one who is a multiple divorcee, adulterer and supports everything the dems usually do. We have another who many right wingers say they won't vote for because of his religion and his flip-flopping. Hillary needs to appeal to the moderates most of all as they will get her into office. Her campaign folks also need to corral the extremists in private rooms and tell them loud and clear, if they persist in raising hell publicly about their pet causes - the ones most moderates don't care about or don't like, trying to get Hillary to commit to them publicly, that they will lose this election and they will get another 4-8 years of republican presidents. Which do they want?

I personally am hoping we get Hillary elected, she turns out to be a good moderate president and Bill is helping out all the way, I kind of miss those years of prosperity. … and the heck with the extremist right wingers who will be bashing from day one, the dems need to minimize their impact by not recognizing their remarks and smears and running the country and regaining our place on the world stage.

Be realisitic, unify and win the election first with the experienced candidate, argue about the pet causes later.

Vote for EDWARDS unless you want to risk losing the general election to a Republican because the country isn't ready/doesn't want Hillary or Obama.

Edwards has the precise plans and the boldness and charisma to lead our country in a better direction and heal our global wounds.

Be smart, vote for Edwards!

Well, maybe CNN doesn't trust the following numbers since they come from a CNN article written about a CNN poll, but here goes anyway:

http://politicalticker.blogs.com.cnn.com/2007/07/18/poll-mccain-slips-in-new-hampshire/

Anway, both Democratic and Republican voters in New Hampshire were asked who are they planning to support and who would they NEVER support under any circumstances. The numbers for the Republicans were as follows:

Romney 33% Support; 17% NEVER support.
Giuliani 18% Support; 22% NEVER support.
Fred Thompson 13% Support; 30% NEVER support.
McCain 12% Support; 38% NEVER support.

For the Democratic Party Candidates it came out as:

Clinton 33% Support; 16% NEVER Support.
Obama 25% Support; 15% NEVER Support.
Edwards 8% Support; 24% NEVER Support.

Hey CNN, between the 2006 Midterm Election results and YOUR VERY OWN POLLS, we already know who has the highest negative numbers right now; quit trying to tell us it's Hillary!!!

(Poor Fred Thompson, he hasn't even announced yet and 30% of Republicans in New Hampshire have already said they wouldn't support him under any circumstance; only McCain has "higher" nagative numbers)

I am a democratic voter and I would not vote for Clinton under any circumstance. She's too political, calculated and cold to lead the nation. We need a president that can connect with the people and offer a strategy for the future. Barack Obama is the only candidate that has a clear vision for the future. Moreover, he is the ability to mend America.

Do the republicans worry about who might excite the Democratic base? They worry about their own base. If the Democrats think like losers, they will end up losers.

Clinton could hurt the Party? All I can say to those who think that is, without leaders liek Clinton who have the guts to stand up for what the Democratic Party has always stood for, the Party would be what it was so recently…irrelevant.

Hill's "high negatives" have always been the main reason why she is not the one to be the first woman President. I hope we hear more from politicos who are not cowed by her imperialistic campaign.

Finally, CNN is digging into Hillary Clinton, it's only taken them 6 months! The Clinton bias on this network is evident and it's nice to see some real reporting for once. For you Clinton supporters out there, get used to it because Americans are sick of the skewed news reporting/polls and frankly, we're not going to take it anymore.

I'm not an American and I won't be voting BUT who Americans elect as the next leader will have Great Consequences on my life and world for the duration of their reign. Just as George Bush's reign has negatively impacted my life and world.

What I noticed most about these comments is that the majority of anti Clinton posters used the word Polarizing as their negative description! Strangely enough not one anti Clinton blogger on any of the previous blog sites used the word polarizing as a negative description in reference to Hillary!

This tells me that the Media not only rules the minds of the masses but also rules the mouths of the masses as well. This is disheartening to say the least. To think that News Corporations and their Reporters have the power to change the minds of the masses and dictate our political future!!!

Take Note Americans - you are being fed, brainwashed, and programmed to do, think, and react to suit the needs and whims of the Political Party able to offer the biggest reward for the paltry position of reprogramming Americans! Astounding really to realize that a Nation's People can be as easy to manipulate as a piece of clay in a potter's hand!

Here we go with the River Boat politics - "Yes, I am a democrat (as far as you know), and I am concerned that Clinton's extreme views will hurt my party…"
Let's get used to it, the River Rovian chatter will intensify as we move toward the election.

Democrats are the MOST stupid of stupid. That is why they never win the big one. Hillary will get the nomination, so one would think that her haters would shut up and not give the Repugs fuel to fire up their base and wet their appetite to go after Hillary. But no, they have to mouth off just to get their name in the papers. Did ANYBODY ever hear of any of these people? What Democrats have they ever helped get elected? Of course Billy boy couldn't wait to report it. Get over it, she will be the party nominee and she will win the general election and she will be a good president (she sure can't do worse). The Clinton's always have the last laugh and they will again.

Hillary's a diehard career politican and unfortunately cannot be trusted. She's just too close to being a republican. She'll say anything to get elected.

I feel like this is a cheap shot at the frontrunner, Hillary.Here we are, with not only the Republicans coming out at her with barrels blazing, but now other Dem candidates will be hurt by the candidate that has the most potential and experience?I swear it's like my women's issue class in college. They said that a black or other minority group man will always win out over a woman of any color. I'm wondering if that's their problem. Hillary has had every possible moment of her life and Bill's life under the microscope for years and years, yet how many people right now are wishing that Bill or Hillary was in office instead of Georgie? With people in your own party undermining your front runner status, who needs enemies?? I'm sick about the steps backward this country always takes when it comes right down to progress in leadership. Al Gore found that out when he distanced himself from Pres.Clinton. He needed Bill to say things the way he could not. I still think he won the race, but that's water under our sinking bridge! I wish the press would cover the back stabbing of the other candidates the way they question party members true allegiance to Hillary. Is this a government ruled by polls and sour grapes, or is it as the Constitution outlines. I really wonder. If Barack was in front, we'd find some reason Dems would be duking it out in back rooms for not supporting him I suppose. Enough! Pick on the Republicans for a change. They are what's wrong with this country now and for the last 7+ years, not including what Reagan and Bush Sr. did to our progressive nation.

The name of this game is making sure a democrat takes the White House in the next election. When will Hillary and Obama realize that they both need each other to win?

There's no doubt Hillary will be polarizing and that will DEFINETLY jeopardize her opportunity to win over tough states that swing.

I cant and wont vote for Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards for that matter. I simply cannot forgive the fact that they voted for the iraq war. They may claim to have been bamboozled, or that they were acting on intelligence available at the time, and thats just it, I dont want someone in office who is prone to acting on faulty intelligence, or prone to makign large mistakes. Does this mean preemptive war is circumstantially justified to the candidates?

They cannot shrug off the biggest policy mistake of their term's as faulty intelligence. I'm sorry but if you were fooled once, you can be fooled again.

The most important thing for this country in the upcoming election is to remove every trace of Bush and his administration.

That being said, I'm not going to curse too much if Guiliani were to somehow win the presidency. But no matter how much I swing towards the middle and entertain the views of the Republican argument, I could never vote Republican until their historic ties with the Religious Right are completely severed. If that's polarizing, then so be it.

8 years of those nut jobs running this country with Bush as their puppet is much too long.

Go Obama! You can do it!!!

People forget that it was the Clinton presidency that energized the right wing so much and cost the Democrats the congress in 1994, leading to nearly 12 uninterrupted years of complete Republican control. Republicans swept to power all over including New York City and the city of Los Angeles, hardly Republican bastions. Now, it looks as if the Democrats are going to hand the whole thing right back to them. Here's to another 8 years of uninterrupted one party (Republican) rule. Maybe by then they will have all 9 seats on the Supreme Court.

Whenever I hear the Name Hiliary Cliton ,I shiver. Most People in the south hate her. People in the east barely hear her. and people in the north are annoyed by her. SHE WILL SAY ANYTHING OR DO ANYTHING TO GET A CHEAP VOTE!

I am a life long Democrat but as time has pasted I have seen the party drift further and further to the right.I don't understand why Clinton is dominating the polls they way she is. I agree she will energize the Republicans more than their own candidates will.When I saw Clinton and the rest of the Democrats falling over themselves to support Israel while Israel was destroying civilians in Lebanon but not destroying Hezbollah I was totally disgusted. She also voted for the Iraq war which I cannot forget.

I can support most of the Democratic candidates, especially Obama, except for Hillary. Before, I have a favorably view of Hillary because Bill Clinton has been a great president, but with her recent remarks, I don't see how I can support her. It's too bad. I am a woman and I would like to see a woman president … but not her.

If she wins the Democratic nomination, this maybe the first time I would look at the other party or the independent party. I might even leave the party for not having the wisdom to see a great leader when one is present.

I wasn't here during the Kennedy's time, and there are many great things that have been said about him. He inspired people. I felt the same thing with Obama … and I sure would like to experience what it's like to be under his presidency.

Congratulation CNN!!!

You finally portrayed the truth of Hillary's high negative ratings throughout the United States. These ratings are sure to remain the same or rise as more of the US sees her calculated, ingenuine, rehearsed lines.

We need a fresh, truth-filled, LEADER who will guide our country on a different and more positive path. That person is OBAMA!!! He has my support and vote in the primary and general elections.

OBAMA 08!!!

If President Bill Clinton could run today, he will win. Polarizing or not, the Clintons are master politicians. She will beat any republican out there, no question. That's why a lot of replublicans are trying to scare democrats to not vote for her.

That's why I'm voting Obama!

I am so fed up with the red-state democrats whining about having a true progressive at the top of the ticket. The Democrats need to be as unyielding on their positions and agenda as the Bush Republicans have been with theirs (despite having to steal the 2000 election to get into Office and barely winning in 2004 and only because some extra homophobes went to the polls in western Ohio due to the state's anti-gay marriage amendment being on the ballot). Notably, the article does not include George W. Bush in its analysis of presidents with lower negative ratings at the end of their election cycles than Hillary has now. He had significantly higher negative ratings than Hillary and still won "re" -election (I say "re" because the Supreme Court elected him in 2000 by a vote of 5-4). And, may I ask, why does CNN give so much attention to two, state house candidates on the issue of Hillary's likeability? It's as if the point of this article is to help undermine her campaign and to help the republican candidates who are in total disarray. In the end, I will take any Clinton over another disasterous republican who wants to destroy job security, retirement security, and health care (to the extent that these still exist at all), and turn all Americans into subsitute- slave labor for corporate America while the CEO of Home Depot gets a quarter of a billion dollars (no, I did not make that figure up) after driving the company into the ground over a 5-year period. Or, how about the current CEO of TXU Energy who, after a whopping 3 and a half years sending jobs overseas so that Wall Street could turn a few more hundred-millionaires into billionaires, stands to get a $275 million buy-out for his "hard labor." Oh yeah, and this is coming from a Democrat living in the biggest red state of all- Texas.

I hate to say this, but it would hurt me to my soul to vote for her. I proudly support Obama!!! I can honestly say I like a couple of the other canidates, but I cannot stand her. If she got the nod, I might have to vote the other ticket.

I'm dissapointed in CNN for allowing this from 50-70 people whom are not reflective of the entire nation.

What people tell a pollster and what they do behind the curtain in a voting booth might be two different things.

Will Americans who say they have nothing against Obama actually pull the lever for a President named Barack Obama? It 'aint gonna' happen folks.

BRAVO "pl at the UN" and the anonymous comment beneath it. As Americans, we have become selfish and self absorbed. How are we to ever climb up from the depths of hell to once again become a world power with diplomacy and compassion for wom/man kind? I mean come on? President Hillary Clinton could turn all of that around for us. She already has the relationships to rebuild the biggest bridge collapse the USA has ever seen. Let her rebuild that bridge with the rest of the world. She may seem phony, a Washington insider, polarizing - but give her a chance. We are watching. The world is watching! She knows she cannot make any missteps after the buffoon who won the last election and stole the one before. Obama may be new and fresh; but at this point we really do need experience with the smarts to NOT make those glorious and royal *** mistakes. Hillary is history, herstory and just what we need. SHe also has the wits and intellegence to surround herself with a dream cabinet!!!

Well………… Clinton won’t take South Carolina, that’s for sure……..

As a 50yr resident of SC (20yrs in Charleston, 30yrs in Columbia), its easy to see the writing on the South Carolina walls. Hillary will -never- take SC, in the Jan.08 primary.

I have yet to find a single Democrat, or Independent, in Columbia (state capitol, largest city) that likes Hillary, and I have been actively looking. The names I hear most often are: Obama, Edwards, and RonPaul. [Yes Dr.Paul is an x-Libertarian, turned republican, for this election at least, and he is quite popular with many Independents here in SC.]

The polls of SC voters that are touting Clinton’s supremacy, must have a margin of error of +/-105%, laughing out loud.

I think that Obama will take SC in the primary, even though Edwards is a native son. There is NO WAY Clinton will take SC. It simply won’t happen.

I have always voted Democratic and I hope I will be able to vote democratic in the coming election, but if my choice is Hillary then I'd rather vote repub. Hillary brings nothing but trouble. Has everyone forgotten the mud slung throughout the Clinton presidency (and I liked Bill) - the Whitewater, Somalia and the healthcare plan that never emerged. For those who continue to say Obama is behind the attack on Hillary or that CNN is not reporting fairly — grow up! You are whining because some facts may not make Hill shine. How about the press riding Edwards over his haircut for over 2 weeks? It is up to the voters to make an educated decision to vote and my decision does not invole BILLARY -too much Baggage

The real question is who will inspire more prejudice among rural white fundamentalist Christian voters. If Guliani wins the GOP, the fundy Christians will go nuts without someone who pretends to be anti-abortion. He cheated on his wife, and he supports gay rights. They won't vote at all unless it's to keep Bill and Hillary out of the white house again. The oral sex scandal will trump Guliani's infidelity among conservative voters. I can't see Clinton winning this election no matter how bad the republicans stink. Guliani or Obama. That's a decision I feel pretty good about if either win. I won't vote for Clinton. I'm fed up with the republicans and I'd still take Guliani over Clinton. I'm tired of the same four knuckleheads from both parties running our country since 1980. If Obama finds a way to win I'll regain some of the faith in America I lost when they put this blundering idiot in office for 8 years.

To Andrew Brown, who posted just above this that he believes "50 or 60 people from Obama's campaign must be writing pro-Obama statements on CNN."

I have never been involved in politics in my life. I've never bothered to write on a board promoting a candidate before and I have never, ever been involved in a campaign before.

I am not part of Obama's campaign now either, but I write in support of him because he inspires belief in me that we can actually make changes to our country. He speaks of the same common sense solutions I've been thinking of privately for years but that no politician has been either articulate or brave enough to say.

The reason you see people supporting Obama is not because they are paid employees, Mr. Brown. The reason for the support is the reason he deserves to get elected, because people believe in him, they trust him, because he's bringing people together instead of pulling them apart.

I respect and admire him and if someone did ask me to go door to door for him, I certainly would. For now, I confine my views to boards like this one, and have only been speaking of my views for the last few weeks.

I would never apply the same effort for Hillary Clinton. I would still vote against whatever Republican that runs because I believe that the Republican party has become so completely detached from what it originally stood for that they are actually dangerous to our democracy and the world in general.

I think this article nails the problems with Hillary's electability. She too is a danger because every Republican candidate right now is crossing their fingers hoping that she's the one they go against, because she'll do the work of getting Republicans to the polls for them.

I've really struggled with this, as I think she'd be an okay president, far better than Bush anyway.

I think she'd be competent, she'd be okay. We'd skate through the next 8 years without attacking anyone blatantly and there'd be some incremental good done. But…THAT'S NOT WHAT WE NEED!!!

Our next president must be a visionary. We need a leader in the truest sense of the word. I think Hilary would be very content with all the extra power her branch of goverment would have been left by the Bush administration.

Instead of reversing 8 years of damage, I think she'd be perfectly happy to keep the status quo and keep things like the patriot act and the overall "war on terror" humming along nicely for her benefit. She would say things like "if you want someone to take on the right, I'm your girl." thus causing more division and more fear mongering, perhaps in different corners but with the same result of pulling the coutry apart instead of together.

That wouldn't serve the country well. We need somebody to come in with an almighty bulldozer and overhaul the system. Obama, for years of public service, has proved he's the one to do this.

Our literal survival is as stake in this next election. We are facing global warming, healthcare that's a joke, a world that shows us no compassion and a lot of hate. We have a culture of greed and instant gratification. I don't honestly believe that Hilary Clinton has the sheer vision and courage to make the kind of major changes that need to happen.

Even if she logically sees what needs to be done, even if she can talk about it, she can't inspire others to pull it off. I don't believe she'll unite the congress much less the states. I don't believe she'll overcome her lobbist buddies to give us all equal and fair healthcare… she couldn't do it before, why now?

I DO believe that Barrack Obama or John Edwards could do those things, especially Obama. I think he represents the kind of visionary leader that the country craves and so badly needs.

Hilary is old school politics, corporate interests, and in general a blase candidate that seems content to rest on her laurels and her reputation.

She scares me, because I find her uninspiring and I want to be inspired, I want to be told that Americans can sacrifice with the best, take our knocks and handle the truth. She feels like my babysitter instead of my president. Obama or Edwards feel like they understand the vibe of the country.

I cried when I heard Obama speak during Kerry's convention, because he was so right, there are no blue or red states, we're all The UNITED STATES. I crave simple truths, even if they hurt. I want to sacrifice to make the world better and to unsure that my children's children still live in a free country. I don't want the country I love to be known as an imperial empire, a dictatorial regime bringing democracy on the backs of missles and bullets.

I want the world to know the good people I know. I want the sort of knowledge, class and courage that the best politicians in history have given this country. It's time for another Abe Lincoln, another JFK, because only a leader that can harness the belief currently lying dormant in this country can pull us safely into the future. I never, ever want to be known as the generation that lost our freedoms to fear and lost our world to neglect and greed. Hilary can't inspire that. She just can't.

The worst thing that can happen to the next presidential election is that it’s close. If it’s close, the Republicans can use caging, intimidation and voter apathy to steal it yet again. If it’s Hilary, it’s gonna be close, and I’m scared.

I do, however, believe that Barrack Obama can inspire what needs to be done. He can not only inspire it, he can pull it off. He can do it. He can bring a million people to the polls that have never even bothered to vote before. They may steal 100,000 votes, but can they stop the other 900,000?

Give him a chance. He and Edwards together would make a great ticket. The Clintons had their chance, lets not live in the past, lets figure out what will make the future.

Obama/Edwards in '08.

Anyone who wants true change should pay attention. Mrs. Clinton will mean more of the same old politics as usual. This is not entirely her fault but is still a reason to not vote for her.

I want the republicans to suffer, but I can not back hillary as a canidate. She and that fool joe liberman have a reputation for attacking the video game industrty which I have really come to dislike from them both. Obama is a far better canidate.

The Truth for Me is this.
Bush,Clinton,Bush,Clinton
over 20 years the same folks,
no change,that is too much of the same.
Enough is Enough.
Bush,Clinton,Bush,Clinton Not.
Bush,Clinton,Bush,Clinton Enough.
Let's pick someone else.
They have had their moment in the sun.
We need someone different,from either
party.Not a Bush or a Clinton.

"To Len - I suppose Obama as a BLACK man is not divisive? Whether they will admit it or not, there are ALOT of people who will not vote for a Black person for president.

Posted By Marc Collins,"

The concern with HRC being devisive is not completely over her sex. People also hate BC. I think sexism or racism are less an issue than the fact that many Americans already have decided they hate HRC and want to vote against her. Obama is not so scarey, though some people may not vote for a black man. Still, I think people are much more open to Obama. I'd like the Democratic candidate to win not by a small margin and as a controvery, but by a large margin. I want Obama to be nominated because it would give our country a chance to form a significant Democratic majority.

Further, HRC is Bush lite. She's a lot of political trouble and not worth it.

I don't see how her policies would be different from his.

Nor do I think she has a soul.

Perhaps that's why so many people distrust her.

AMES, Iowa (CNN)– The winner of the Ames, Iowa straw poll says the three Republican presidential hopefuls who skipped the contest knew they couldn’t win. Mitt Romney came in first in this crucial early GOP presidential showdown. The former Massachusetts Governor won nearly 32% of the vote, far ahead of his competitors.

This is the news…..

"I've been monitoring the comments, most of which are anti-Clinton and pro Obama. Taking CNN power into consideration i'm not surprised if Obama's campaign strategically place a few people maybe 50 or so from his campaign to post anti- Clinton comments on here. also strategically putting pressure on CNN to modify the manner in which they report on the success of the Clinton campaign. I'm dissapointed in CNN for allowing this from 50-70 people whom are not reflective of the entire nation. Don't change what you report and how you report it because of a few Obama waganist.

Posted By Andrew Brown, Gaithersburg MD"

What? That's quite an accusation. Are you "monitoring" for the HRC campaign? Are you an official worker or volunteer? Is there some inside information you have about how CNN works? Is HRC's campaign aware of how CNN makes its decisions? Are you in contact, and is that how you know? Really, I wouldn't be surprised if HRC had people "monitoring" on line discussions. Bush lite.

By the way, I don't work for Obama. If I did, I think his campaign would have better things for me to do than monitor free speech and keep track of CNN's blog stories…

But of course, HRC.. Really, seriously, please clarify who YOU work for and how you are sure that CNN is being pressured by 50 or so people "strategically place" by Obama's campaign?

Let us know any more insider info you have. BTW, you aren't working for the Obama campaign too, are you? Or does HRC have some spy system to keep tabs on what he's doing?

Perhaps she's using the wiretapping with Bush.

A Hillary nomination will destroy all the Democrats gained in Nov 2006.

Wow…good job Democratic Leaders. We get the greatest Democrat that could run our country and you worry about her electablility. I'm about to switch to an independent just because I'm so da** disappointed in the ability of Democratic leadership to stand up for what they believe in. You know why I'm voting for Hillary Clinton? Because she's honest and doesn't BS. And that's probably why she has high negative ratings. Because she doesn't say oh, I'm definitely going to have health care implemented in the first two months in office, because she knows it's impossible. Democratic leadership needs to get a clue. The only person I'm not disappointed with in the party right now is HRC.

She ran the country great the first 8 years in the White House, why would she not do it great her second 8 year period in the White House?

To pl, at the UN: We want what's best for America first, moron. The world comes second. I'm glad you can't vote.

I still don't understand how Hillary is the most qualified. Some please shed some light on this. Every time I talk to a Democrat they always wax on about her husband Bill and then her. Her "qualifications" seem to be that she is married to Bill. Heck, she's not even from New York yet parades around like she's lived there all her life. She is a wolf in sheeps clothing and you all are fooled by her. She has nothing other than being married to Bill. It must suck to know that the only reason you are popular is because of your husband. Without him she is nothing.

It is remarkable so many Democrats cannot see the risk of nominating Hillary Clinton. She is the most polarizing figure in politics. A Hillary nomination will awaken the sleeping GOP dragon.

I'm a Democrat. I'm also one of those people who knocks on doors, hands out literature, mans telephone banks, and works to elect Democratic candidates. If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will quit the Democratic Party and will against any candidate that supports her. Hillary Clinton is anti-worker, anti-labor, pro-outsourcing, corporate insider. If she is chosen to lead my party, then that party doesn't need me, my vote, nor my support. In my state, somehwere between one-quarter and one-third of normally hard core Democrat fell exactly the same way. Ms. Clinton is nothing more than Bush in a dress, worse than him even, in her support for even more outsourcing and Indian guest worker programs. Nominating Hillary Clinton is political suicide.

As a resident of Illinois, I am concerned that Sen. Obama will become involved more deeply in the Tony Rezko scandal/court case as we move into the primaries.
And the folks who are truly anti-Hillary are the same folks who blindly supported the war in Iraq for the last 6 years.
I wish Al Gore was running. If not, I will proudly vote for Hillary in the Illinois primary.

This is what I suspectd all along…Clinton fares well in Democrat stonghold states that typical vote liberal.

However in the tougher, more conservative heartland and south she is a liability…apparently even for other Democratic candidates.

I do not understand why she has such a large lead in polls, despite the fact she is neck and neck with Guiliani or other Republican candidates.

That is why the Democrats need a candidate with a better track record getting independent and moderate voters such as Obama.

Even Edwards would be a better option that Clinton because he is from the South and would do better in red states.

This article originated from the Associated Press, not CNN. At last, someone is telling the truth about Shillary. I am surprised CNN (which has been joked is the Clinton News Network) published it. The Republicans do hope she gets the nomination.

She is a two timing, backstabber and so is her husband.

I am 59 years old and have voted for every Democratic national ticket since George McGovern in 1972.

If she is the nomineee I will vote a straight Republican ticket next year

I am a partisan Virginia democrat, and I have sworn never to vote Republican again in my life- but I cannot support Hillary Clinton. She is despised in my state. She will lose if nominated and will hurt the party up and down the ballot- Clinton can't carry a single southern state, and without doing that a democrat can't win- its that simple. I am backing Obama. I'm open to the others, but I will not work for or vote for Hillary Clinton. Wake up Democrats- dump her or lose!

I have voted in every election since i turned 18 in 1975! I will vote in the Illinois primary for anyone other than Clinton! If she is the party's nominee, I WILL stay home! I will not vote for her or the Democratic Party that supports her! I voted for her husband twice and held my nose both times!

In regards to Andrew Brown's comments:

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you. To say that such news sources, like CNN, are in league with Obama or are at all pro-Obama is absurd. In fact, it seems the total opposite. Almost all the news venues seem as if they support Hillary, as if they think she will no doubt will the nomination. This article is one of the first to show her in at least a slight negative light–that is why I was very suprised to see it, I could not believe something somewhat negative about Clinton was posted. As for your thoughts regarding CNN having Obama's campaign "strategically place" anti-Hillary comments, that is also ridiculous. The comments are not a conspiracy, but a demonstration of Americans who want true change in the country and a fresh leader who can "turn the page" and not simply reread what has already been written.

As a life-long Democrat, I put no single candidate above the good of the party. And let's be honest…we know in our guts that Hilary is simply too polarizing to defeat any Republican candidate in the general election. And that's why the Republicans desperately want her to win the Democratic Primary. For the good of the party, she should withdraw, but of course she won't. So it will be up to the congressional and party leaders to openly endorse Obama or Edwards - and they won't. Even if it means a sure defeat in '08. And that's precisely why we are destined to remain the lesser of the two parties. Like our current congressional leaders, we continue to refuse to make the tough decisions, regardless of the stakes.

Clinton's polarizing effect hurts more than Democratic candidates at state and local levels. It hurts the Democratic party's chance of taking the White House. Even as a Democrat-leaning Independent voter, I'd vote for a moderate Republican before voting for Hilary. America is sick of the Clintons. America is sick of the Bushes. Our nation needs new, independent thinking that is anything but more of the status quo–from either party. And it takes more than a change of gender or race to makes changes that are anything more than symbolic. It takes ideas that are independent of corporate interests. It takes a leader who gives a damn about the people who are paying taxes for a government that serves our best interests, not vice-versa. Another round of Clintons in the White House? Another round of Bushes in any public office? No thanks.

Polarizing? What a joke. The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she represents more of the same status quo, ineffectual, foot-dragging, finger-pointing, deal making politics as usual. She is as middle of the road as a politician can get. She represents nothing new and will not do anything particularly positive for the country.

I'm currently an Independent, but will vote Democratic. Hillary Clinton is not the ticket. She has contradicted herself too many times for me and represents all that's old about Washington. It's about time someone from CNN woke up and decided to point this out. If you think I'm kidding, go to youtube and listen to her 2002, 2003 statements about the Iraq war. Compare it with her 2007 statements. Their completely contradictory. This is just one of many examples. Then she has a nerve to slam Barack Obama. NO, NO, NO!!! I wnat someone running the country that will communicate with the American people honestly without a hidden agenda. How can you expect a team to function properly when the quarterback polarizes The offensive line. Its time to bring this country together and Barack Obama is the only candidate that can do that.

Let us be frank, much of the unfavorability of Hilary Clinton stems from many people feeling fearful with a strong woman who is seeking the highest political office in the nation. She projects strength in her public-speaking skills due to her confidence. I do not agree with her on all of the issues (I am, at this point in time, a supporter of Dennis Kucinich). However, I do think that she has been wrongly maligned due to her gender. It is unfortunate and I hope, if she is the Democratic nominee, that she is elected as the next, and first woman, President of the United States.

If Hillary becomes president I would leave the country. She is poser, always making excuses and never taking blame for doing anything wrong. At least our current president stands by his choices even with all of the idiot liberals always bashing him for doing the right thing.

In response to Mr. Andrew Brown's comments:

I am not a member of the Obama campaign (nor I doubt are the others who have posted comments) but am an optimistic citizen who for once will be voting on the Democratic ticket because of Mr. Obama's stances and leadership. I, for one, am happy to finally see some even coverage of the presidential campaign from CNN.

Maybe the fact that you are seeing so much (multi-partisan) support for Obama is that the American people are not pleased with the Bush/Republican status quo and Hillary's lack of strength and inability to change our nation's path. I hope for a positive future for the US and I believe Obama is the one to deliver it for us all.

It's unfortunate but true, I am a very liberal democrat who will be voting for Obama for the primaries, but I would be very conflicted if Hillary wins, I think she is a phony and more of the same, and don't think I could draw myself to the National Polls to vote for her. Come on Dems think, sure we are very familiar with the Clinton name, but we need a candidate that can not only win, but bring America together, and Obama is the man. Sorry Hillary.

Perhaps, at least in Mrs. Clinton's case if she were the nominee, that people will vote for her because they are voting against the Republicans. Staying home should not be an option — even if Hilary is running. As bad as it might be to some, a vote for Hilary is a vote against the lame Republicans.

I'm really really glad someone is finally talking about this. Hillary is unelectable in the general election. If she goes up against Rudy Guliani, she will lose. The democrats somehow figure out how to jack up every election no matter how easy it should be. Let's please not do it again by choosing Hillary.

I doubt anyone will read this who actually cares, but I've got to say it anyway. I find it interesting, if not rediculuous, that this articles states NOTHING about the best candidate for america, only for the democratic party. Is it really so impossible an idea to put forth the best person for the country, not for the party?

Stories like this highlight EXACTLY what is wrong with BOTH political parties.

If you like Hillary, then you should vote for her. If you don't like her, or you like another candidate better, then you should vote for them. But to not vote for the candidate you prefer because you are afraid of the impact she ~might~ have on downstream elections is stupid, and to not vote for her because you are afraid she will INCREASE voter turnout is un-American.

As for the downstream candidates who are worried about Hillary's "impact" on their campaigns, my advice is simple: Grow a pair. Your election is YOURS to win or lose, and YOU — not Hillary Clinton — will win it or lose it.

"R's could run a nose-picking toddler" and "she's hated" do not say WHY — there is NO BASIS for anyone's dislike other than the poor image the media has cooked up. She actually tried to help as first lady which is a lot more than the docile Laura Bush has done. Plain and simple, she's the best candidate of ANY out there on the criteria of experience and competence. She's tried and true and a brilliant person that could handle whatever comes our way. Obama is a great guy and has plenty of star power but he's a lightweight on the experience side of things. President is a tough job and if Hill's willing, America would be lucky to have her intelligence and ability to bring consensus. Case in point: New York State: she is LOVED by the NYC firefighters who she advocated for when they came down with lung conditions. She also won rural traditionally Republican upstate NY by 60%, rarity for a Dem. Godspeed to her.

Hillary Clinton. Think about it. Oh yes, she is a power that makes some men shudder and other's fear. Do the other candidates??? NO! And you have to think about WHO you want for PRESIDENT????????? to run our COUNTRY???????????????????????????????
Do you prefer a weak, meak, mild force who will be dismissed when "he" tries to convince the world that he is serious and knowledgable of the situations at hand?????
Hillary pulls no punches…she is a determined candidate that knows where we've been and where we are heading…and knows she has a mess to clean up from the Bush Admin. Multi-tasked!!!! (No man can compete with that!!!!)

In an election, all candidates run towards the poles during primaries; this is because party members get to decide the party's candidate. Therefore, the party presidential nominee is usually polarized from the get-go.

However, for the general election, both nominees start a mad dash towards the center, cause that small group of moderates in those swing states are going to decide the election. Now, whichever candidate has to travel the shortest distance to the center is likely the one that the moderates would vote for. And that individual is most likely to win the election.

Don't get me wrong; I have the utmost respect for Hillary Clinton. But I've talked to a lot of my friends in other states, the "Red States", and they all tell me that they don't care who the Republican candidate is IF AND ONLY IF Hillary is the Democratic candidate. I asked about Obama, and they were on the fence and willing to hear more about him.

Whether or not Hillary really supports radical left views or not is utterly irrelevant here; as most elections have shown, issues are irrelevant. Only appearances are. And before she even has the Democratic nomination, Hillary already looks like the "Wicked Witch of the West" to most moderates. If she wins the nomination, expect many Republicans to come out in opposition to her just on principle.

This drives me crazy. Any strong, worth-while candidate will of course energize the opponent's base. But rather than put up the very best candidate we can, and then fight like hell to get HER elected, we ring our hands and wonder if we should be nominating a weaker person who could appeal to the idiotic, I mean independent, voters
(like Kerry - boy that worked out well). What about the 3-4 points the party could pick up on the left - from the green party and others who keep skimming votes off the Democratic candidates?

To those machines trying to paint a negative picture of Hillary everytime she rises, I think you are what is wrong with America. Al Gore should have won it but the lazy Democrats didnt turn up. And some foolish republicans were swayed by the Bush instead of going for McCain.

Someone said Obama didnt have many years with him that's why he doesnt have many negatives. Well in public life, the more time you spend, more negatives come out.

Hillary has spent years working with Senate members on both sides. She also shows she has the grasp of each and every topic, not only in debate but also in person discussions. And about her being polarizing, even Billy Graham has said she is a warm, passionate woman. Those who call Hillary vindictive, also call her intelligent. Why?