CNN

I love all the emphasis in the various campaigns about the importance of "experience."

Cheney and Rumsfeld had years of experience under 3-4 presidents, and look at the mess they caused!!

I agree with Jesse Belcher of Arlington, VA that Governor Bill Richardson deserves more attention than he’s getting. Richardson is a genuinely good guy with one of the most impressive resumes of any of the candidates.

Here’s a link to his web site:

http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/

Hillary/experience? Being the first lady doesn't give you experience as president. I think change is needed, but I don't see any one candidate so far that is a REAL change from the politics of the past decade.

Figures that the goof that referred to the Democrats as Demons, would try to say that Kerry and Gore were lesser people than W if in not so many words. W is not nor ever could be fit to carry the luggage for either of them or any of the Dem's that have announced. Kerry's failure in the race was based on being too much of a gent to sue the Swifties for slander and get a gag order + millions in damages. Or to go for the throat of his untreated alcoholic opponent in the debates. The only thing I want is one of these democrats to stop trying to sell out the AMrican workers with their immigration position. Capture, punish and expell. The punishment would be to help build the wall and lay the minefield along the border. Shame Romney is such a weasel, he at least supports the workers of this country in this one area, if no others. But he will not target the real terrorist and end the oil war, balance the budget, refinance social security & medicade, break the hold of the energy and insurance companies or bring the jobs home from China. Maybe Prince Andrew would like the job.

I think it is a very valid point that the polls use land lines. If they were cell phones (people under 50) the results would be very different. I believe you would see that Obama has a hughe advantage and is more than likely ahead of HRC in the peoples minds. If you follow these bolds you will see almost immeadiatly that the comments by far and away favor Obama. Get with the times. Obama 08 is a winner! I like him more every day.

Silly question. Of course we want both. And if we are fortunate enough to elect a Democratic President in 2008, that’s exactly what we’ll get. Every one of the Democratic Candidates brings a wealth of experience in both domestic and foreign policy. Every one of them would change the direction of this administration’s irresponsible finances (trillions borrowed and wasted), disastrous social mismanagement (millions uninsured, victims ignored), unconstitutional expansions (wiretaps & torture) and reckless foreign abandon (thousands dead and our nation’s reputation in tatters). Every one of the Democrats is well-qualified and every one will (if elected) turn this country around and get us going in the right direction.

On the other hand, the Republican candidates all lack one or both of these qualities. Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani (who’s never risen above mayor) have no foreign policy credentials whatsoever. Thompson has experience as a lobbyist, but never actually did anything in the Senate. (Part of the reason the GOP field lacks experience is that their leadership is either in jail, under indictment, disgraced, born in Austria, or Dick Cheney). Only McCain has the experience to be President, but he doesn’t want change. The Republicans ALL represent the status quo. Not one would change direction in Iraq. Not one would roll back the foolhardy tax cuts for the wealthy. Not one is concerned with the healthcare, education, housing, credit crunch and environmental issues that matter to everyday Americans. Oh, they’ll posture on immigration and abortion and gay rights, but the Supreme Court and their own business base will keep them from changing anything. Beyond that, they’re Bush clones on everything from taxes to terrorism to the war. The republicans aren’t even running on change. They think we’re on the right track!

Don’t believe me? Go to any objective source and compare the candidates.

The Democrats have experience. The Republicans don’t.

The Democrats will change direction. The Republicans won’t.

As to the differences in experience and ideology in the Democratic field, they’re relatively minor. Any of the Democrats would be a big improvement on what we’ve got now.

WHAT?? Why does mainstream media keep saying Hillary has more experience? At what? I think it's disingenous of the this feminist candidate to claim experience based on having been married to a president. (Especially when the whole nation knows she didn't always know what he was doing.)

NONE of the candidates has been president before. Nor had George Washington, Abe Lincoln, Jack Kennedy, et al. But all of them have some kind of life experience.

Obama is experienced at leading and experienced at inspiring and building coalitions (community organizing. Hillary is experienced at polarizing and partisan politicking.

Maybe Mrs. Reagan, Mrs. Ford, Mrs. Carter, and both Mrs. Bushes should run –after all they've all had the experience of being married to presidents. Some of them have a lot more experience at that than Hillary!

Obama believes in America – he gets us. Hillary believes in Hillary. She doesn't get us.

Clinton seems to be the most crooked one of the Democratic bunch. As an Independant, I would never vote for Clinton if it came down to her as the Democratic front runner. If you want to harness someone with the ability to draw from all political pools (Dem, REP, and Ind) get Obama, Edwards, Richardson, hell, ANYONE else from the Dems would be better.

Make no mistake – Hillary Clinton does NOT represent change. She is more of the same. She voted for the war. She supported the immigration bill that most of America was against. And she has always supported the outsourcing of US jobs. Infact, she brougt one of the largest outsourcers of US jobs i nto her state – look it up!

If you're going to vote for her, you may as well just vote Republican. Same product, slightly different packaging.

GIVE ME A CHOICE – PLEASE!!!!

Pretty much every comment I've read on this deals with Clinton, Obama or Edwards. There are other people in this race you know, and one specifically that has the best qualifications of anyone. Gov. Bill Richardson has been a US Representative, Cabinet level Secretary, UN Ambassador and is currently the Governor of New Mexico, a republican leaning western state where he was reelected last November with 69% of the vote.

Gov. Richardson has been a diplomat his entire life, representing the experience that, frankly, no one else on either side of the aisle can lay claim to. He has the executive experience of a Governor that is a necessity for a President. He has legislative experience, giving him knowledge of how to work with Congress to promote legislation that is beneficial for the country, but importantly, he is a movement of change and progress, having motivated the previously lethargic New Mexico legislature to pass legislation that improved education of our children, tackled the endemic issue of DWI and bolstered the economy through sensible tapping of natural resources, meaningful tax legislation and an eye to the future with the future building of an international spaceport.

If this Governor can improve one state this much in only 4 years, imagine the improvements around the country and the world that he will bring as President of the United States.

Those who want experience and change should look beyond the media headlines and take a close look at the qualifications that Gov. Bill Richardson boasts. I guarantee you will have a second opinion.

You get neither experience or change with either candidate. You get both members of the council of foreign relation, more of the same. The agenda is right under your nose, WAKE UP!

Bill Richardson is correct – he represents both change and experience. No other Democrat has the breadth of experience he has on both the domestic and foreign policy fronts. He'ld also represent change, being a Washington outsider [former Clinton Admin. cabinet member aside], and the first Hispanic president. Too bad he's not getting the attention he deserves.

I agree with Adrian- Clinton-Obama '08!

She is experienced all right, at lying:

The American Spectator reports in 1996 that on her Asian tour, Hillary Clinton told New Zealand television that she had been named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Sir Edmund, however, was an unknown beekeeper the year of Mrs. Clinton's birth.

Senator Clinton,Has more experience than Obama. President Kennedy was a war hero before he went into politics. Senator Obama should what is turn. I don't want ppl to say that he screwed up because a lack of expreience.
My slogan for senator Clinton is You Need a Clinton to fix bushes mistakes.
People underestimate Senator Clinton. As a New Yorker we like her.

Experience vs changed? Hmmm, I would prefer a leader with good judgement. The Democratic Presidential field (let alone the entire Presidential field) is the most diverse in the history of the United States. No one is experienced to become President unless you have been a Vice President or a President going on a second term. With that said, none of the Presidential candidates (Democrat, Republican or Independent), have the so-called "experience". Hillary Clinton was the first lady and that's all. Some Democrats seem to forget that. She has had exposure to the US Presidency (through her husband) but not experience. The most important factors for me to nominate a presidential candidate at this stage is judgement and trustfulness. Obama and Bill Richardson have demonstrated. But Obama has added advantage of strongly supporting change in Washington politics.

Amazing. You just keep finding ways to exclude other candidates, as if we "must" choose on the democratic side from these two individuals.

John Edwards outshines both of these two by far...he will stand up for the interests of the common man. Start showing Edwards alongside these two...he is the truly electable democrat.

I have read all the comments that have been posted and I see all sides. I do think that Hillary would make a great president. As far as being the presidents wife not giving you experience, that is a load of bull. First of all, I was with an electrician for 5 years, therefore I learned a tremendous amount about his job, what he does, how, and the difference between commercial and residential. Likewise he learned a lot from me about computers as that is my field. Secondly, I seem to remember an awful lot of people saying that Hillary was pulling Bill's puppet strings when he was the president. Now people seem to have forgotten about that and want to say she doesn't have the experience.

As far as Obama, what I know about him tells me that he could make a pretty good president as well. Anything would be better than having another Bush or any Republican.

At this point all I know for sure is that I am voting for the Democrat, whoever it may be, but like others, I believe an Obama/Hillary ticket would be amazing, in either order. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the gender or race issue with either one of them. I still know a lot of people that would not want an African-American or a woman in either office, and I hope that does not affect the vote as much as I have heard around here. It was even mentioned during the last presidential election at one of the debates to an African-American female that she had no chance to win because of the country wasn't ready for either, let alone both in one. Personally, I believe what better way to signify change than to have one of each on the same ticket. As much as I would love that ticket, I hope the Democrats don't over look that as something that may just crush any chance of winning the election.

I think Hillary would actually do fine with foreign matters, but Obama would excel in homeland issues and dealing with people.

p.s. anyone know the likliehood of a fellow candidate who loses in the primary , then being selected as a running mate? What are the stats on that having happened in the past?

I want to see change. If you do too then:
BUSH – CLINTON – BUSH – CLINTON
certainly isn't change.
BUSH – CLINTON – BUSH – OBAMA...oh look...change!!

GO OBAMA!

GW also promised to be a uniter, not a divider, in reality he has been the most divisive president in history. I live in New York. Hillary has not done anything for this region, maybe she is just focused on the presidency, but she is too focused...which is scary, and makes me feel she is very disingenuous, based upon my "experience" with her as senator....
Obama has enough experience to know to vote with his convictions, not to just follow the herd, anybody who knows him from his home state supports him, not the same with Hillary...she will divide the party lines and split the Democratic vote because of her acerbic personality, voting her produces another Republication Prez, and just helps the rich 1% keep suppressing everybody else...don't listen to media crap, trust your instincts....

I cannot believe Clinton is getting away with this experience mantra without any specifics to support the assertion. Anderson Cooper, please keep her honest. Your so called political experts like Schneider are doing the american people a deservice by repeating this experience mantra without asking her tough questions.

Looking at Sen. Clinton's Senate record, I would say that Sen. Obama has more experience than Clinton any day of the week.

I will take Obama's change over Hillary's 'experience' ANY day!!

I will repeat what i just wrote in another post: Obama appears to be a nice man, but he does not have enough experience right now to be president of the US, particularly in these difficult times. He's only been in the US senate for over 2 years and I don't consider his time in the state senate as enough experience to be president. He should bide his time and his moment will surely come, but I think that when all is said and done, the 2008 Democratic candidate will be Hillary Clinton.

Experience is not measured by how many years one has been around in politics but what one has accomplished during that time, how one has conducted himself/herself during that time and how people's lives in the country have been impacted by his/her accomplishment.

So, Senator Clinton does have experience in terms of being around for a while. Being a 1st lady and accompanying the president to 82 countries does not create foreign policy experience. Failing in only significant effort on healthcare reform during her time as 1st lady did not accomplish anything. Getting elected in a democratic state like New York, with a last name of Clinton defeating an unknown light weight in Rick Lazio is not a huge success. She did not get elected in a Republican state defeating an incumbent Republican senator to claim "she can withstand the relentless right wing attack machine". As a 2 term senator from New York, what legislature she passed in US senate that have improved lives of American people. Her only significant bills had to do with addressing needs of 9/11 victims which is logical and right thing to do.

So when we talk about Mrs Clinton's "qualification and experience" as the most qualified democratic candidate, what the main stream media really means? Do you guys know something more that people don't?
When Senator Clinton talks about 35 years of experience, it talks about years but her accomplishment or her impact on people's lives are "invisible". One last thing is Bill Clinton was quite a successful President though he has compromised his moral/ethical standing in Oval office but he did not need 35 yrs of experience to become a President. JFK was a 1st term senator, Lincoln was a one term congressman.

When experience does not serve American people in critical time like Senator Clinton's position in authorizing Iraq war did not, what this experience worth anyway?

Experience? Change??
Neither offer desirable options on either subject.

Pre-911 government mentality is not what America needs for the 2010's. And another Jimmy Carter type, just for the change, would be another Middle East disaster. Guaranteed!

and here is a definition of experience

ex·pe·ri·ence
Pronunciation: ik-'spir-E-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin experientia act of trying, from experient-, experiens, present participle of experiri to try, from ex- + -periri (akin to periculum attempt) - more at FEAR
1 a : direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge b : the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation
2 a : practical knowledge, skill, or practice derived from direct observation of or participation in events or in a particular activity b : the length of such participation
3 a : the conscious events that make up an individual life b : the events that make up the conscious past of a community or nation or humankind generally
4 : something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
5 : the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality

I'll take a healthy dose of change please.

I'm for change, compassion, accountability, and knowledge. Senator Clinton's accountability factor is lacking. If you won't be accountable for mistakes made then your integrity goes out of the window. Haven't we had enough of these lapses from our present administration?

Guess we might as well learn what change means while we're at it:

Main Entry: 1change
Pronunciation: 'chAnj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): changed; chang·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French changer, from Latin cambiare to exchange, probably of Celtic origin; akin to Old Irish camm crooked
transitive verb
1 a : to make different in some particular : ALTER b : to make radically different : TRANSFORM c : to give a different position, course, or direction to
2 a : to replace with another b : to make a shift from one to another : SWITCH c : to exchange for an equivalent sum of money (as in smaller denominations or in a foreign currency) d : to undergo a modification of e : to put fresh clothes or covering on

Presidential Candidates is not an author's name.Always append your name to your article if you are sure and stand by what you have written. It is called good jounalism.

Still can't bring yourself to write about Rep. Dennis Kucinich while saying, "change".

There are other candidates and you only see money collected, not influence.

Kucinich still shows as leader on ABCNews poll above these two, but will you report on it? nah...that would shatter myths.

Perhaps Karl Rove's prediction is rooted in some fact (sorry to say). I am a registered independent and former Republican. I won't vote for any Republican candidate for President, but I also won't vote for Hillary. Judging from the numbers in the polls, a substantial number of Democrats won't either. I like Edwards/Obama (in either order). If the Democrats don't get it right candidate-wise, we might see a Republican get the Presidency (perhaps Giuliani). Given that Dems like to shoot themselves in the foot, Karl may be right, they will select the flawed Hillary and the Reps will have a chance at a third term in the White House....

Who's to say we can't have both? Can we say, Clinton-Obama 08! That's a winning ticket, what do you guys say?

An interesting perspective on media bias. Try doing "in-house" searches on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on Reuters, Fox News, BBC and CNN, and you come up with the following ratios (Clinton first) respectively 1:1,2:1,5:1 and 7:1, ie. CNN gives seven times more coverage to Hillary compared to Barack Obama than does Reuters US, and more even than the BBC whose bias is widely recognised and as a result is generally ignored. At the very least CNN can hardly claim to provide a balanced political picture. Me? I think I'll focus more on Fox from now on. Thanks, CNN, it's been fun, but I've moved on.

Barack Obama is just the sort of positive person, a decent man, that this country needs. His honesty is unquestionable, he will reach across the aisle and unite with all in Congress. He's extremely intelligent and makes the best choice IMO for the nomination.

BaRockthe Vote !

To hell with your poll(s). I have never seen the media so biased. It's flat out ridiculous! Is anyone interested in protesting?

So can I ask a question? Who says Democrats don't know what they want. I'd say some are not sure they want Hillary, some don't know enough about Obama yet... but time is certainly on his side and that's becoming more blatantly obvious with each new debate and poll.

How much experience does one get from being first lady? She says she has 35 years of experience. Being First Lady doesn't mean you have your finger on the button, that you're making the hard decisions. You make speeches and make public appearances and travel overseas. You seem like a leader, but you're not.

What about the candidate who worked helping disadvantaged Americans on the ground, who did civil rights law, who taught constitutional law and who hasn't been corrupted by years of dealing with big money interests.

Democrats want change alright, and they want an end to the gridlock that consumed BOTH Clinton and Bush's presidencys. That's right, Clinton's too. Because Bush has been SO divisive, people forget that Clinton and especially Hillary Clinton weren't able to get alot done because of the way they handled their administration. They didn't exactly bring people together.

Real world Experience. This is what america needs, not superficial experience which basically draws on the substanceless status quo if the establishment that invaded Iraq, did not catch Osama Bin Laden when Clinton had the chance to, did nothing about Rwanda, created a Nafta that secured Canadian and Mexican jobs more than it did American jobs and opportunities

Our next president must be a visionary. Democrats know that's what we need. We need a leader in the truest sense of the word.

Instead of reversing 8 years of damage, Hillary'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. That wouldn't serve the country well. We need somebody to come in with an almighty bulldozer and overhaul the system.

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 at the expense of our kids.

Even if she logically sees what needs to be done, even if she can talk about it, Hillary can't inspire others to pull it off in the same way Obama has proven he can from Harvard to the streets of Chicago to passing over 152 bills in the State Senate and many bipartisan bills in the Senate, more than Hillary I believe.

I don't believe Hillary'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?

Obama has a plan, she doesn't. Why? Because she has to do it the HMO's way or the highway, she's taken too much money from them to do otherwise. Her good intentions have been shaped by the mud she's forced to wade through. Obama lacks such baggage.

Obama. I think he represents the kind of visionary leader that the country, Democrat and Republican alike, craves and so badly needs.

Hilary, like all the Republicans, is old school politics.

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.

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 ensure that my children's children still live in a free country, freer than it is today. 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 in '08.

Don't tell me Democrats are unsure of what they want. I'd say we're more sure than ever what we want, and now it's just up to the media to get on the same damn page.

Those thinking that Clinton is going to bring change are lost in translation. I think what is happening here is that most democrats think that just because Hill is Bill's wife, then Bill=Hill. That is non-sense. The woman is aloof, arrogant and ofcourse, she will lie through her teeth to get the votes she needs. She represents no change. Barck represents change and he reminds me of JFK. Experience as a first lady..does that count? We want real change not people who have been scheming for the presidency since 1992. My question is..an accountant's wife automatically becomes experienced in Accounting? America, please seize your chance and run away with it. Barack is the way forward and GO BARACK!!

It is not an either / or proposition. Hillary Clinton will bring a complete about face from the failed conservative politics of the Bush administration. She also is eminently qualified. She gives us both experience and change – the idea that we as Democrats must somehow choose between the two is a fiction.

Change. I'm sick of rich white men being president.

The Question: Do Dems want Change or Experience?

The Answer: CHANGE!!!!

OBAMA '08

Dennis Kucinich won the Iowa debate and was not only ignored by ABC but was cut out of the group photo on their web site. He had almost 4000 more votes than Obama in ABC's poll after the debate. I thought the people decided who the next president is to be not ABC news or the other news outlets for that matter. Where is the outrage?

As a registered democrat (who would, incidentally, much rather be an independent except for the primaries), I choose change.

I want the next President to work as hard as possible to bring change to all the corrupt aspects of Washington, from raising transparency in the executive branch to encouraging Congress to promote bipartisanship and limit earmarks and corruption.

So far, Obama is the only frontrunner who's really demonstrated the will to change and specific ideas on how to bring that change.

The serious doubts emerging about both candidates' experience, judgment and ability to change raise legitimate questions about the electability of both. Neither has shown much substance or gravitas so far, just being non-Bushes.

Thanks for making the parallel with Jimmy Carter and the post-Watergate election. Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it. Please also remember the 25 point or so polling advantage Carter had going into the election. The Democratic nominee won't have that margin this cycle, and I doubt Obama could withstand Republican scrutiny and publicity of either his slumlord connections or his Illinois Senate district. The GOP would have a field day with "A Bridge to Hyde Park". Imagine the video and voiceover.

Ms. Clinton does not have any more political experience than Mr. Obama. Ms. Clinton never held a political seat before being elected senator of NY., the same year Mr. Obama was elected senator of IL. Prior to that Ms. Clinton attempted to reform medical care in the U.S. but did not receive the political backing she needed to make it happen. She served as First Lady of the U.S. while her husband was President. I am sure she dealt with some diplomatic situations as first lady. Prior to that she served as First Lady in the state of Arkansas where her husband was elected governor for multiple terms. I don't know how being first lady of Arkansas and then of the United States give her an edge over Mr. Obama in the experience arena.

Bill Schneider,

When you discuss these poll results it is fair not only to mention "telephone interviews" but you need a disclaimer that makes it clear theses are LAND LINES the results could be VERY DIFFERENT if we add people with cell phones to the sample. Without the right context polls are meaningless, but they can mislead the unsophiticated consumer.

By the way is it true CNN still uses Mr Gupta's company to conduct theses presidential polls. That will be a shame

CHANGE, please!

As another blogger mentioned before, Kennedy was elected to the presidency at age 43 and is known as one of our nation's finest leaders. What enormous 'executive experience' did he possess before election? Obama has the grass-roots community experience and experience in the State and US Senate and enough WISDOM and courage to speak out against the war in Iraq while other candidates were busy riding the wave of political popularity, whichever way the wind took them at that point.

Obama for change AND experience! Obama 08!

The Demonacs, I mean the Democrats are insane if they put Clinton or Obama as their presidential nominee.

Clinton carries way too much baggage and Obama is not electable in a nationwide campaign. He is too young and too inexperienced.

This race is going to go down as the one the Democrats should have easily won but for lack of a solid candidate they lost it . . . again.

Silly question. Of course we want both. And if we are fortunate enough to elect a Democratic President in 2008, that’s exactly what we’ll get. Every one of the Democratic Candidates brings a wealth of experience in both domestic and foreign policy. Every one of them would change the direction of this administration’s irresponsible finances (trillions borrowed and wasted), disastrous social mismanagement (millions uninsured, victims ignored), unconstitutional expansions (wiretaps & torture) and reckless foreign abandon (thousands dead and our nation’s reputation in tatters). Every one of the Democrats is well-qualified and every one will (if elected) turn this country around and get us going in the right direction.

On the other hand, the Republican candidates all lack one or both of these qualities. Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani (who’s never risen above mayor) have no foreign policy credentials whatsoever. Thompson has experience as a lobbyist, but never actually did anything in the Senate. (Part of the reason the GOP field lacks experience is that their leadership is either in jail, under indictment, disgraced, born in Austria, or Dick Cheney). Only McCain has the experience to be President, but he doesn’t want change. The Republicans ALL represent the status quo. Not one would change direction in Iraq. Not one would roll back the foolhardy tax cuts for the wealthy. Not one is concerned with the healthcare, education, housing, credit crunch and environmental issues that matter to everyday Americans. Oh, they’ll posture on immigration and abortion and gay rights, but the Supreme Court and their own business base will keep them from changing anything. Beyond that, they’re Bush clones on everything from taxes to terrorism to the war. The republicans aren’t even running on change. They think we’re on the right track!

Don’t believe me? Compare the experience of the candidates and their policy proposals on CNN’s Road to the White House page:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/

The comparison makes the case obvious.

The Democrats have experience. The Republicans don’t.

The Democrats will change direction. The Republicans won’t.

(As to the differences in experience and ideology in the Democratic field, they’re relatively minor. I hope you will be respectful to all and pick the one you like best. Any of the Democrats would be a big improvement on what we’ve got now).

Barack does have experience. You don't need to elect Bill Richardson to get both change and experience.

Please provide the evidence of Clinton's alleged experience. True, she's older than Barack, but who has more experience holding an elected office? That's right, Barack Obama! Who has more significant legislative accomplishments? That's right, Barack Obama!

Even if one were to concede that Clinton has more experience, which I do not, let's talk about how that experience has informed her decision-making process by looking at the vote for the Iraq war. This is a case study in the kind of decision-making a president faces and Barack knocked this one out of the park. He had the foresight to know that it was a bad move. That ability to discern the right thing to do is what I'm looking for in my president. Highly preferable to going with the flow and looking at it in hindsight and saying "if I knew then what I know now..." as Clinton is doing. Guess what? Barack knew! Even back then and Clinton and the other major contenders did not. Hillary didn't even bother to read the entire National Intelligence Estimate. Didn't her "experience" teach her that you need to read the fine print? There are used car salespeople who dream about the kind of naivete displayed by Hillary's vote and her justifaction for it.

As a registered Republican, all I can say is that ANYTHING would be better than the embarrassment currently occupying the White House right now.

I would prefer a Republican in '08, but I am afraid of the very real possibility of "Bush-Cheney lite," e.g. Fred Thompson and someone else.

Hopefully whoever wins in '08 will be enough of a leader to get Democrats and Republicans working TOGETHER again for the good of the country.

Experience you can buy – for example Cheney. What America (not just the Democrats) appears to be looking for is leadership. Now is the time for candidates to set out their visions and hopes for the future, rather than focus on the negative.
In this regard, I find it strange that after the last debate, CNN's headline refers to a conflict between one of the candidates and a political scientist not running for office, rather than focussing in any way on something more positive for the American public to digest.

The obvious answer to that question is that the dems, also the american voters, want change AND experience.

Obama represents change, so does Hillary (woman, and vs the republican regime). However, Hillary has experince while Obama has not.

In Hillary's 8 yrs as first lady in the white house and close the president, she would learn a lot DAILY about domestic and international politics, while she and her husband was bombarded by the republicans for personal issues. They ate them all and spit them out, and survived in the end, and that no other dem or republican presidential candidates know how to react.

Obama promotes himself representing change, but change does not always end up to be better. To an inexperienced leader, that could mean chaos to the country.