CNN

Buggie, San Diego, CA:

Is this the only phrase you memorized and capable of writing? Because you keep posting this same phrase over and over again.

I'll give you a valuable piece of advice: please do some research about Mitt Romney, his agenda's and what he stands for in general and educate yourself instead of spewing these bigoted statements. I bet you will learn some new and exciting facts.

Just another out-of-touch-with-reality Mormon.

If Romney gets nominated, the Democrats will win BIG in 08.

If Giuliani gets nominated, the Democrats wil win BIG in 08.

The only chance for the GOP to win in 08 is by nominating Ron Paul. It is simply not possible for any pro-war candidate to win in 08.

And here's the kicker: Ron Paul is MORE anti-war than any of the Democrats.

Step 1 is to admit that only an anti-war candidate will win in 08. Step 2 is to register Republican and vote for Ron Paul in your state primary. Step 3 is to vote for Ron Paul in the general election.

If GOPers dont give up the war issue, and embbrace Ron Paul, they will lose everything.

IF the GOP is serious to compete with the Democrats the best candidate would be Ron Paul.

His ideals appeal to both the conservatives and the liberals.

To all the Ron Paul geeks out there.. HE HAS NOOOOOO CHANCE OF GETTING ELECTED... NONE!!! So get over it. Romney is the best candidate out there, and all u bigots can just relax.

There are undoubtedly hundreds of supporters of Ron Paul showing up at his speeches, events and fundraisers, but I suspect that may be the extent of the support for the candidate. Every candidate has ideas of merit, but few possess the leadership presence and command that is so needed, and was last exemplified by Reagan. Romney's command of the issues, intellect and engaging style have to be reckoned with . . . and despite what the Paul supporters would like to believe the crowd does get any bigger than the one they're standing in and just follows Paul around.

Ron Paul is the only Republican who can win a general election – the public does not want another warmonger.

So apart from being the only sane choice, even if you disagree with some of his views, its either Paul or a democrat.

There is only one Republican who is capable of beating any Democrat nominated. That man is Ron Paul. He already has a number of Democrats pledging their votes to him. The RNC should smarten up and get behind him. Any other Republican candidate will be defeated by any, and I mean any other Democrat including Gravel.

I have to laugh at the people who are complaining that CNN is saying too much about Hillary, and not giving equal time to the other democrats. I can't help but wonder if their reasoning is that over 50% of the readers are more interested in Hillary, compared to the 2% and 5%, etc, that the other candidates get int he polls. I would imagine they are responding to what the largest group of the public is interested in.
GO, HILLARY!

CNN and Fox are two arms of the same corporate animal. They only pretend to hate each other to perpetuate the false left-right dichotomy the CFR trash wants us to focus on - so we don't notice that Wall Street is getting rich as hell while Main Street stagnates.

Get Ron Paul in there ASAP. I have had enough of the Wolf Blitzer-Sean Hannity-George Stephanopoulous-Bush-Clinton-Rockefeller CFR crap.

RE: Ron Paul:
"But will you hear this from CNN? Heck no."

Do you hear it on Fox News? I consider CNN, while far from perfect, a lot more evenhanded with the news than the far-right propaganda machine that is Fox.

Does anyone really care about this guy?

Pro-choice as governor, anti-choice as prez candidate. Health care plan as governor in Massachusetts VERY similar to Hillary's current plan for country.

What does Romney stand for? Changing his stance every time the fascist religious right says, "Jump"?

We don't need another clown as president. The elephant we have, and Cheney as Goebbels, will take years to repair the damage they caused.

I guess the $130k that Ron Paul raised in a single day from grass-roots supporters in California is a mirage? How about the $35k that he raised at a fund-raiser that I attended in Ft. Lauderdale (prior to the Value Voters debate) after that he spoke to a crowd of over 200 people at a rally. I didn't see a single supporter for any other candidate that day! Oh, I'm sorry – I did too. A drunk guy that said he got out of prison that day was yelling Hillary Clinton until he started trying to direct traffic (a second time) and was arrested for public drunkedness – lol...

Mirage? Nope. You're just not seeing the people everywhere he goes because it's not reported. Go to YouTube and you can find MANY videos of supporters all over the country. Go ahead – I dare you to look...

A mirage? Really? Does the Paul campaign have holographic projectors now? Please explain how crowds of real people are an illusion!

It is humorous the number of people who don't realize how insignificant the National polls are compared to the early-voting states. Romney didn't go after the national polls. He went after the early voting states and has several of them in his pocket.

The man is a brilliant, resilient strategist.

He was an unknown and has no choice but to buy ads for the sake of name recognition. He knows what it takes. He's up front and candid about it.

And there isn't a huge crowd of Ron Paul supporters. It's an illusion. A good one, albeit, but a mirage none the less.

You can't just buy an election...you need a good message. And yes Romney has a ton of money...but thats because he loaned his campaign 9 million dollars.

And money alone won't do much. 70% of the country is categorically against the war in Iraq...so it won't matter if a pro-war candidate has a billion dollars he won't win

Hey, where's the reporting about the standing ovation and the huge support that Ron Paul got this morning at this event on Mackinac Island? (I had to learn about this by phone with someone who is there, since I can't find out such news from our "news" media.) How long do we have to endure this under-reporting of the only Republican antiwar candidate? Let's see...70% of the American people want us out of Iraq now. And Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate supporting that overwhelmingly popular view. But he's a "secord tier" candidate, not to be reported on very much. Looks like a rigged and corrupt system to me, rather than news reporting.

If the Republican party nominates a candidate with the right conservative ideas, with the right universal appeal, the money will be there.

The right candidate does not depend on money but on ideas. Right now Ron Paul has the right ideas in contrast to Clinton. When he is nominated the party can use its resources to sell those ideas and the man.

With Romney, you don't have the principles to sell. You just have a rich man lending his campaign money.

Mitt Romney at 7% in the latest Gallup Poll. Since this poll calls a couple hundred mainstream Repubicans who voted Bush in the 2000 primaries, mostly older people who have landlines, this is likely an accurate reflection of Romney's strength.

Ron Paul, 4% in the latest Gallup Poll. Since this poll calls a couple hundred mainstream Repubicans who voted Bush in the 2000 primaries, mostly older people who have landlines, this is likely a complete underestimation of the younger, newcomers to the Republican party, who don't have landlines. It also doesn't take into account the massive support from ex-Democrats, independents, libertarians, and people who were previously just plain alienated by people like Romney.

Conclusion? Ron Paul, with his enormous and genuine grassroots following, most likely has more support than a "top-tier" candidate who had to buy his way to victory in the Iowa Straw Poll.

But will you hear this from CNN? Heck no.

Can anyone say what MITT means in the english language?
I know boxers use two (gloves?) to fight or whenever it is cold you put them in your hands, well anyone?

Great way to deliberately ignore the HUGE crowd of Ron Paul supporters that greeted the candidates and the LACK of supporters present for the other candidates.

When is CNN going to start reporting the explosive growth of the Ron Paul campaign? I sometimes wonder if you're going to ignore him when he wins the primary too. You've ignored his wins and high rankings in straw polls around the country and the fact that he is the only candidate that has large crowds of regular, every-day Americans meet him wherever he goes.

I was one of those supporters in Ft. Lauderdale last week. There were several hundred of us there to escort him from a nearby fund-raiser to the Values Voters debate. After the debate, Dr. Paul spoke before a crowd of upwards of 200 supporters – his speech received several LOUD standing ovations. The crowd was on fire. From what I understand, this is what happens all of ther country.

By the way, the Ron Paul campaign doesn't spend a dime for these rallies. His supporters organize and fund them. How many other candidates have supporters like that? How much money did Mitt Romney spend in Iowa? Ron Paul had about $3 million on hand at the end of last quarter. I bet he'll have at least $10 million on hand when they report this quarter.

Why am I reporting this and not CNN? Why does CNN post so MANY articles about John McCain and why do they call candidates like him "front runners"? Am I missing something here? Isn't this supposed to be a news channel web-site? Aren't you people supposed to be journalists?

Good plan, Mitt, except Barack Obama is going to be the nominee.

Build your warchest to trash the Hillster, but prepare for Giuliani to lose to the only lawyer among the Dems' top three who has any significant achievement in fighting the corporate powers that be– Edwards.