Yes…by pure coincidence Mr Obama. But…wait a minute, did you not get elected to the Senate in 2004. The war in Iraq started in 2003. How could you have voted at all?
Someone please correct me if I have the facts all wrong.

Obama is right on that.
Furthermore we don't need any more family dynasties in American politics.
The Clintons are fine, Hillary should stay on as Senator, but Obama pr most of the other democrats are better choices.

Barack is definitely a better choice than Hillary.

It is frustrating to hear so much about Hillary's so-called experience. I don't count "fighting" for however long she's been fighting as in her favor. What has she actually won as a result of her efforts? More importantly, why do so many people feel a need to fight her instead of working with her?

Can anyone point to something she has actually accomplished that benefited the public or anyone not named Clinton? I mean besides passing bills that name post offices, congratulate championship college lacrosse teams or help 9/11 victims.

Obama, on the other hand, has been a leader at ever stage of his adult life, successfully worked with Illinois Republicans to pass important legislation such as ethics reform, greatly improved the public's ability to know where the federal government is spending our money as a US Senator and is, overall, just a much better candidate in terms of the quality of his experiences and his leadership ability.

My hope is that the undecideds will actually look closely at the candidates and not just buy in to fallacy that Clinton is ready to lead our nation.

If they do look closely enough, they should find that Barack is the inspiring leader we need to help put this nation back on the right path. He has the right experience, judgment, temperament and, especially, character to be a great president.

Obama is leading the polls in Iowa. This is just in from Newsweek! National polls mean nothing — Iowa is where this will be decided and Obama is up 8 points on Clinton!

It seems that the major contenders for the democratic nomination are:
(a) Obama
(b) Hillary
(c) Bill-Hillary
(d) Edwards.
My choice is (a).
(B) is ruled out because Hillary has neither the judgment nor experience for the job.
(C) is eliminated with some hesitation because even though Bill was capable and smart, he tarnished the White House and his pollution on American social and moral values can not be underestimated.
(D) is cut out becasue his $400 haircut using the campaign money is an early sign of serious corruption when he is empowered.

Obama does not have to raise more money than Hillary to send a message. As long as his fund-raining is in a similar scale as Hillary's, it speaks against Hillary's inevitability.

Once again Mr. Obama is correct. I also do not want the politics as usual that we'll get with Mrs. Clinton or any republican candidate. At this exact time in our history Barack Obama is what this country needs to begin to get on the path to a secure, sensible and united future. Please don't miss this chance to make a fundamental difference for our country. These moments only happen rarely and the opportunity is now to regain our pride in America.

I would vote for him over a Clinton any day of the week.
He is correct and I would bet the Clintons are in the pockets of more foreign lobbys than we would like to know.

Actually, we want someone who can win in 2008, and who has the experience to get us OUT of Iraq.

That's why I support Hillary Clinton.

While the nuclear issue in Iraq was a false alarm, at the time all evidence indicated that the urgency was real. So, the declaration that Obama got it right is not justified. If the intelligence had been legitimate, then Obama would have gotten it very wrong. Ignoring the presented facts to maintain a permanent anti-war policy and just so happening to have hte luck of the draw is not being "right".

An idiot of a law professor for president?
And idiocies are supposed to clarify issues?
Having "veritable leadership qualities"?
C'mon Mr Edwards, America needs honest hardworkers in Wash.
How did you make your millions again and again?
How much land did your criminal neighbor sell you?
At what price?
Did you do him any favours?
What kind?
Why did he purchase that empty lot for?

Hey pl. at the UN!

Glad I got your attention. Obama was in the Illinois Senate and voted against military action against Iraq in one of their resolutions. He has an official vote against the measure.

Also, if you have time, please tell us how do you work at the United Nations with such poor grammar.

Both the former President and Senator Clinton have voiced their concerns about Senator Obama in recent days.

Senator Obama's opinion regarding the Clinton's is important, even if it is inaccurate. This is America, and thank God people can still disagree.

There was a lot accomplished during the first Clinton Presidency, and when it was over a lot that still needed to be done. I am hopeful since they share so many common beliefs that Senator Clinton will take the country in the same general direction we were headed under President Clinton; but it will not be the same.

I do not look at a new Clinton Presidency as an extension of Bill Clinton's Presidency. And, I am sure that any woman in 2007 would be insulted to hear that they are merely a reflection of their husband's accomplishments. Senator Clinton is extremely qualified to be president, in her own right, based on her own merits.

And, once again, Senator Obama was right on his opposition to the war in 2002 (applause). However, he was not a United States Senator at the time, so his opposition meant nothing.

I remember 2002. I opposed the war in 2002, along with a good share of the population. But the vast majority of Americans at the time, for many reasons (some misguided) supported the war.

We are there, and now we have to do what we can to get out.

"The same old experience is not relevant … And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience,"– Bill Clinton in a 1992 Debate with George Bush

Obama has no any right to talk about 2002 war vote, because he was not eligible to vote it. He was busy with campaign for Senator, he is out of sense to point war vote for his campaign. He lied to public he opposed the war from the beginning, he wasn't in Congress in 2002. I will not vote Obama no matter what he says. He played dirty game like anti-Hillary video, financial memo even apologized, and he said he has more experiences than Hillary, it is lie. He is using black people for his dream, it is dirty racism. He will regret what he spoke out soon. This man is fearless and impertinent fellow.

To pl. at the UN for a while:

I understand where your heart is for the democratic nomination and respect the fact that your choice may be different from mine. However, a healthy debate should be based on facts not fabrication. Obama has never said that he voted for the Iraqi war. What he said was that he was against the war since the very beginning. His famous anti-war public speech in 2002 is public record. What I would like to add is that not only he was against the war back in 2002, but also he foresaw the consequences of the war. Unfortunately, we are now in the mess predicted by him five years ago. This is an example of Obama' judgment, leadership, and courage.

The Clintons are old school….still believe most voters cant think for themselves.

Obama's right, Americans need a fundamental break. I believe deep down Bill and Hillary Clinton understand that too. We need Obama in 2008.

Who is Obama…. I do not know him. Grow up boy, you cannot be president of USA right now. Media is giving too much importance to you. There are better known and experienced candidates around.

i bet all these also voted for bush

Obama or Hillary will be great….There is plenty of time for either one to win this….We need the second tier candidates to begin to leave the race so we can see who would command the lead….This will give us the best option in winning in the end.

The "experts", the pundits,etc., MSNBC and all the rest,have "annointed" Mrs. Clinton the apparent winner.
Be calm, take a deep breath , Senator Obama will win IOWA and run the table.

The voters know this, only the journalists are confused–they just have not seen this type of politics–done this way–before.

This IS NOT Dean, Bradley, or Gary Hart.

It's a really neat opportunity for the Pols to learn something new,AND give them something new to write about, and talk about.

Welcome to class ladies and gentlemen!

Chris,

While I agree finding WMD would have offered some justification for invasion, it still doesn't excuse the poor planning that has resulted in endless instability.
Not to mention the questionable means for Saddam to deploy WMD against US interests. There honestly was no "smoking-gun".

Obama acknowledged more than a WMD question. He spoke of a poorly planned war that would lead to "an occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Congress didn't acknowledge the lack of planning for Post-War Iraq. Such lack of foresight is reprehensible.

Just because Obama wasn't a US Senator in 2002 doesn't make his pre-invasion stance any less important. Being an elected official in Illinois, his vocal stance against the war still put his credibility on the line. Anti-War wasn't the "popular" opinion of the time. But Obama saw the holes in this invasion long before Washington did.

Dear pl. at the UN for a while:

You are right, Obama was not elected to the Senate until 2004. He never claimed to have voted on Iraq. What he did do, when he was running for office, is speak out against the war, calling it a "dumb" war. His word.

Now, I think that this is a far more risky thing to do - speak out against a popular war when you are running for office. It would have been easier for someone IN office to oppose it…they would have had more time to equivocate and back pedal if they had been wrong. Barack took a risk, displayed his judgment, and he was RIGHT.

Don't try to put words into his mouth. He never claimed he voted. He gave an insightful assessment of what the future of Iraq would hold. And he was RIGHT.

Respectfully,
Jim

I voted for Bu$h last election. When I did so, I felt dirty. I might feel dirty again this next election if the Dems decide Hillary is most electable or better qualified,,, or will preserve the status quo better than any other candidate. Nothing could make a Republican out of me faster than Hillary Clinton.
WE NEED CHANGE!!

What has Hillary done for anybody other than her and Bill? Her "experience" consists of watching a President as first lady….come on, who is she kidding.

She is a total fabrication of the liberal media and they coddle her with kid gloves. Wait until (or if) she becomes the democratic nominee…she will be the "biggest target" ever because she has so much to aim at.

Our country can certainly do better than her (and her crooked husband).

I support Barack Obama because:
–he is a fresh start for the Democratic Party;
–while he could not vote in Congress on the Iraq issue at that time, he spoke out against it publicly;
–Hillary cannot and will not win a general election. Period. She is just too divisive, and regardless of whether or not I agree with her, I cannot support her for that reason. Republicans are COUNTING on her winning the nomination, SALIVATING for it, and I will be not part of it.

GARY, GLENWOOD

If you think Hillary will get us out of Iraq, you should look at some of her recent legislative votes.

In case you missed it, she voted FOR the Lieberman-Kyl amendment, assuming an aggressive posture toward Iran, potentially opening the door for GWB to attack Iran, and continuing the politics of arrogance that have taken us nowhere in the past 6 years.

She is now saying that she will not promise to remove all combat troops from Iraq, even by 2013.

To distract us, she wants to give all new babies $5000 when they are born, at a cost of 20 billion per year (tax dollars).

Thought you might like to know that she really doesn't possess the judgement to be my president, no matter how experienced she says she is. (cough *Bill's experience* cough)

As a resident of New York State I have felt that Hillary has done nothing but pander since the moment she set foot here. Everything she's ever done has been carefully calculated to win votes.

But the biggest problem with her being president is that we've had enough divisiveness over the past 20 years. No more Clintons and no more Bushes. Ever. Let's get someone in there who isn't automatically hated by 50 percent of the population and return some civility to this country.

It's about time this guy starts proving why he deserves consideration to be the Dmeocratic nominee. It's not "going negative" to point out the many many factually-based reasons why Shrillary is not fit to be that person. Unfortunately, neither is he.

So Mr. Obama thinks that Hilary Clinton does not "offer the break from politics" that people need. This is strange when he boassts of having more experience in politics than Senator Clinton. Obviously, he must be part of the establishment he disdains. He also offers his "non-vote" vote against the war in Iraq as proof of his experience, if so, then Mr. Kucinich, who actually had an opportunity to vote should be the ideal candidate.

Even if Ms Clinton does not repreent the change America needs it does not follow automatically that Barack Obama represents that change. Real change might be reflected in a Clinton/Newt Gingrich ticket to unify the country, as Mr. Gringrich has identified that need. They will provide the much needed experience and they are both guided by the Constitution that gives the Congress (the Washingtom "esrablishment") a most important role in the U.S. government.

UN person:

On October 2, 2002, then State Senator Barack Obama gave a now famous speech at a rally during which he denounced the Iraq war, predicted negative outcomes and did so at a time when anyone who voiced opposition in this country was deemed "unpatriotic". To give a speech like this, he jeopardized his future political career and demonstrated a depth of character and courage that gives me reason to support him with great enthusiasm today. Here is the speech that he gave; judge for yourself.

Delivered in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.

I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

pl. at the UN.

Lol. Do some research buddy. Barack said he opposed the war, not that he voted against it. He gave several high profile speeches against the war.

And regarding John Edwards and trial lawyers - the next time you're injured on the job (assuming you had a real job), represent yourself in court and see how far that gets you. A guy at the UN calling lawyers malicious. HA!

Ok, I know Im going to offend by saying this but Obama will not win and cannot win a general election. He can not because he is "BLACK". America, despite what some may believe is still a racist country and this can be seen every day in the media with the many hate crimes and racist statements. Furthurmore, in addition to his being black the statistics show that even black Americans don't vote for their own and Im sorry but this puts Mr.O at a larger disadvantage than any Hillary might have. I also think that when Hillary wins the primaries she will not select Obama as running mate because of one simple fact, he is from the north. Typically presidential candidates select running mates that balance, Hillary is from the North and if she is smart and has any good advisors she will select John Edwards as a running mate. But anyway good luck to everyone and may God Bless us with a Democrat.

on an important issue he got it right but he did not vote so his opinion mattered for not when it came down to Iraq. Second he needs to stop playing that card. He did not vote for it…because he was not allowed to. He has not even been in Washington as long as the Iraq war. he is inexperienced.

Robert Reich is the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. This is what he says about Clinton’s comments about Obama’s experience.

Bill Clinton was 46 when he was elected president in 1992 – the same age as Barack Obama is now. But Clinton has questioned Barack Obama’s readiness to become president – arguing that by the time he himself ran in 1992 he had far more experience than Obama. He also states that when he decided not to run in 1988 (when he was “closer to Senator Obama” in experience) he didn’t think he “knew enough and had served enough and done enough to run” at that point in his own career. While I can understand Bill Clinton’s eagerness to undermine his wife’s most significant primary opponent, he is not, I believe, completely ingenuous. I happened to talk with him in 1988 before he decided not to run, and also in 1991 before he decided to run the following year. His calculation at both times was decidedly rational and entirely political, based on whether he could win.

But more to the point, it strikes me as unfair to claim that Obama lacks relevant experience for the presidency. When he ran in 1992, Bill Clinton had been the governor of a small, rural southern state; as such, he had only limited experience with national issues and no foreign policy experience to speak of. Incidentally, at this point in the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton has served as an elected official in the U.S. Senate for not quite eight years, and before that a First Lady in the White House. Obama has so far held elective office for almost twelve years, at both levels of government – first as an Illinois state senator and then as a U.S. Senator. Before that he was a community organizer among Chicago’s poor, and then a civil rights lawyer – two experiences that in my view are critically relevant to anyone seeking to become president of all Americans. Obama’s international experience comes first hand – his father was a goat-herder in Kenya, and Obama spent a portion of his childhood in Indonesia. And as an African-American, with all the personal experience that implies, Obama seems particularly well qualified to understand the issues that need to be addressed in order to unify America and renew the nation’s moral authority around the world.

You got it right! again.

Go Obama '08

Democrats are sick, evil, twisted people. They are depraved and lack family values. Republicans are honest, hard-working, and virtuous, pure in body and mind and never thinking sick thoughts like gay sex and beastiality. Democrats always think about havng sex with men.

Homosexuality, deviancy, delinquency, and beastility=Democrats

Vitality, virginity, and purity = Republicans

I would rather Obama who has an awesome track record and proven leadership, than someone who is untrustworthy and scared to talk about the real issues that face this nation(i.e. Hillary Clinton).

I would like to e-mail Senator Obama's articles, as well as other articles to certain individuals who don't receive the ticker. Could you please add that to your articles? thank you

And I thought Kasinich was the crazy one!

Do you remember how popular bush was in 2002? For a man with a name like "Obama" to come out completely against it would be political suicide, but he did it. Even though he was only a state senator, unlike everyone else who knew if they voted no they could of been hit with a smear campaign, obama stood on his principals.

I like Obama. But the country doesn't really know what it will get… he can talk now but when put to the fire…my guess is he'll be just as political as the next person be it Hillary, George, Bill or Mitt. At least with Hillary when you vote, you know what you're getting and what you're not getting. She's a known entity. Any candidate isn't going to have everything you want… but you do look for experience and history. I don't know Obama's history - he can hypothetically talk about what he would do but he can't say that he has actually done anything.

Look at all of those who voted for George - another rather unknown - what he actually said in his campaign is not what he implemented… accountabiity…he has the least accountable administration since Nixon… nation building…well, only a numbnut would not get this one (oh, John Stewart called Bush a numbnut!)… education…hmm, shall we's let the chidren's does their homework and maybe we'll finds out if the Leaves No Children's Behind policy are working (using Bush grammar)…

Obama would make a good VP, or Sec of HHS, or Sec of Ed but no Pres - not this go around. I'm not voting for another untested politician…

There is only one way to really stop the "business as usual in politics", and that is to stop both Democrats and Republicans from getting elected. The only way that will happen is if the vast majority of voters stop voting them into office, and that is very unlikely. Think about it…

pl. at the UN for a while,

Please be quiet and let the commenting on our 2008 Presidential race be done by Americans. I just read where your "attempted criticism" of Obama fell on deaf ears because you said Edwards. You're an Idiot!

Tony, Enterprise, Alabama and pl with the Un for a while.

What dundrheads! You can still vote FOR or AGAINST the war when you are in the state senate. He voted AGAINST the resolution at the senate level though it was not binding to what Congress did.So saying its nothing obviously goes to show that you guys just want to grasp to any straw remaining to save your frustrations with Obama's chances of doing well against Hillary. Hillary will always say anything to get elected including the fact that if the Cubs and the Yankees were in the World series, she would alternate her support between the two teams though she is a Yankee. C'mon..wisen up bros.

Don in Houston : The pl at the UN said Edwards because he meant John Edwards not Obama. Can't you read or comprehend? People like you vote?

Anyone who speaks out against Hillary Clinton is probably part of a vast right-wing conspiracy plotting against her.

She demonstrated political hubris with her health care "mission" as First Lady.

She demonstrated her gullibility (or venality) with her extended denial of her husband's infidelities.

She demonstrated her political "gamesmanship" by running for a Senate seat in New York, rather than the state of Arkansas (or Illinois, where she grew up).

New York can keep her. Maybe she can work on her baking skills with the Neiman-Marcus cookie recipe of urban legend fame.

Someone posted the text of Mr. Obama's speech from the year of the war vote. They stated that, because of his ideas expressed in that speech, he should become President. Then, I say to you, Vote Suzanne in '08 - I felt the same way, spoke to people over and over expressing the same realities, but I didn't have a public forum where my words were recorded for posterity. I think I would make a fabulous candidate!

I blame the state of the world today on those who re-elected Bush, as well as those who chose not to vote at all. By doing so, you have chosen for the rest of us. Sort of a "lie of omission", if you will…

One thing to remember in this election - America has not come as far as I would have hoped it would, after all these years, and likely, neither Hillary or Obama would be elected. One is a woman, the other is black.

In response to another post, this is why I am sad to be from Florida:

"Democrats are sick, evil, twisted people. They are depraved and lack family values. Republicans are honest, hard-working, and virtuous, pure in body and mind and never thinking sick thoughts like gay sex and beastiality. Democrats always think about havng sex with men.

Homosexuality, deviancy, delinquency, and beastility=Democrats

Vitality, virginity, and purity = Republicans
Posted By Theodore Kornegay, Jacksonville FL : September 30, 2007 8:04 pm "

too funny…

pl. at the UN for a while,

You need to have your facts straight bro. You have always been making negative comments everywhere there is a positive story about Barack. When the constituents needed Hillary the most to use her judgement, she let them down. Her biggest vote, i must add. If you do not know that, then I have no idea why you even bother.I do not think you ever worked at the UN…EVER! I don't see the rest of us writng where we have worked earlier on for while. Liar!

Theodore,

You're not doing the Republican Party any favors with your diatribe.

I don't care for Obama's policy proposals - I'm a Ron Paul supporter myself - but I am impressed with his diplomacy. (Or is that the diplomacy of his handlers and speechwriters?)

That was a very cool way to not put down his fellow candidate, yet still differentiate himself in a positive way.

The Clinton Era will always be remembered for the Monica ordeal. Bill Clinton wanted to be in the history books and thanks to his lying ways he is there. Does the word Impeached remind you of anyone? Do we really want his wife with him behind her, back in the White House?

Hey Mark from Dallas, you mention that "at least with Hillary when you vote, you know what you're getting and what you're not getting. She's a known entity," and your correct, and therefore why so many Americans will NOT VOTE FOR HER.

She tries to be "everything to everybody" and NOBODY wants that. She parades herself as a "moderate," however she is a true socialist.

She is so selfish and self serving, just like her husband, and CANNOT win a general election.

Suzanne in '08-

You should run for office. If your judgement is as good as you say it is, and if your educational background and credentials equal those of Senator Obama, I will vote for you.

Senator Obama is one of the finest American politicians I have seen these last few months, and I know that he is the best choice for president. Hillary doesn't seem to touch people the way Obama does. As far as experience goes, I say without a doubt that Obama has way more experience than Bush ever had. Another reason to vote for Obama is because I think we've lived under a white man's supremacy for our entire history… what could a minority in office do to better help us?

Also, I noticed that he saw the passionate act of minister Joe White making a cross. I saw that same act at the University of Northern Colorado (minister White said he believed in Christ, especially after being diagnosed with leukemia, and pretended to be a Roman cross maker to make his point), and thought that that was sight to see.

To Regina,

While Newsweek's poll of Sept 27 show Obama ahead of Hillary by 4 points in Iowa, the American Res. Group two days later show that Hillary is ahead of Obama by 6 points. Averaging 4 recent polls, Hillary is still ahead by 3.5 points over Obama.

Evem if Hillary loses Iowa in Jan 2008, it is just psychological, and not critical, and she will be the come back girl in all remaining state primaries, except Illinois and Idaho where Obama has a higher poll standing from dem voters than Hillary, if the primaries were held today.

Yes, you have to look at the forest, not just the tree.

Theodore………Rep. Foley? Sen. Larry Craig? Recognize either of those names or are you truely mentally deranged?

Firenze from Florida: You should also be sad you are from Florida because that is God's waiting room. You have been watching too much Fox news. It is not fair and balanced. It is twisted like your thoughts.

And I think maybe Teodore has watched the Peter Sellers movie 'Dr. Strangelove' too many times and thought it was a documentary, typical Bush voter.

Yes Mr. Obama it certainly appears as if you have a lot of beliefs. Obviously not one of them is about helping our troops. A Sailor came to you begging for your help and you repeatedly turned him down. How do you reason not helping a Sailor in a Psych Ward because he was abused in boot camp? Have an answer for that one? Hillary does because she stepped in and helped him, saving his life and his mind.

Obama is just slick and spewing a new angle, the nice guy, anti-political politician. (As in "I would meet with the enemy, no questions asked." It reminds one of Hanoi Jane.) He is new and unknown, and he does not have the experience or ability to get us out of Iraq, which, by the way, won't solve the problem with terrorists. He does not get my vote. Hillary does — and I don't even like her.

ol at UN - yes clearly anyone who was not in washington at the time, no matter what else they were doing, has no interest in the Iraq vote of 2003. What a silly argument when you spell it out.

Even sillier when you consider Obama was a lawmaker with the ability to draw some attention to the vote a

Chris from Palo Alto, nice try. All that needs to be said to you is N.I.E.

hey pl at the UN, no, Obama was not in the senate so he could not vote on the war. However, he very eloquently spoke out against it.
So you have the facts partially correct.

america is not ready for a black president. democrats will loose if obama is their candidate. only if republicans field a black candidate than obama should be called. let hilary be president.

When one ponders whether or not a certain story is considered "news", one must always certainly pay special attention to the source of that story.

Hey Bill Evans…
Did you just call Barack Obama "boy"?

The Democrats are screwed if they nominate Hillary Clinton. They will lose the presidency and never again be taken seriously. I have never voted Republican and I will if Hillary gets the nod. Obama 2008 or else.

I'm sorry Mr. Obama, but how can you claim that you "got it right" when you were not privy to the information that was presented to congress. YOU WEREN'T THERE! I understand that you opposed the war from the begining, but as a young woman, I feel we do need a change in politics in Washington, and it starts with not being lied to. If you can't tell the truth in this stage, how many half truths are you going to tell us should you be elected to office?

SB Maryland

Thanks for posting the classical speech.
This is Obama time. Hillary has to be able to stop the "time" before she can stop Obama.
America this is your opportunity to regain the country that everyone used to admire

This is why Hillary won't win:

The conservative turnout AGAINST Hillary would be enormous. If the republicans put a moderate in the election - say Giuliani - they will get plenty of moderate, swing votes. If Hillary opposes him, Giuliani will get tons and tons of votes from the Christian right, who would turn out en masse to vote AGAINST HRC. Obama would not drive that type of turnout, in my opinion.

Obama is the only hope for change from the Republican administration. Don't you see that HRC's baggage and polarity will preserve the Republican oval office?

I like Obama, but he has said that he would start war in Iran…is this what we want? I want someone who believes in negotiation and diplomacy, not a military
non-solution to everything. I can't dismiss the feeling that we're over there to pad the pockets of all of Bush's and Cheney's buddies at Halliburton (are they getting a kickback?) I can't vilify Hillary for her war vote-she actually voted for a one year presence in Iraq, not to give Bush the unlimited power he has taken.Remember, this is a man who constantly tramples on the Constitution, thinks the Congress doesn't matter except when he needs a whipping boy, and who signed an executive order allowing him to declare martial law and suspend elections in the event of a national emergency (9-11 redux, anyone?) Peace is the answer.

CNN, where is your report that barack is leading among likely-caucus voters in iowa??

you like to tout hillary's lead in the national polls, yet you continue to ignore obama's surge in iowa. truly amazing.

Not only Obama but people who know the Clintons very well like Robert Reich are talking.

I hope CNN in fairness will bring their view to the public.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/09/qualifications-setting-record-straight.html

He wasn't ABLE to cast a vote against the Iraq resolution…it wasn't FOR war in the first place, bush abused the resolution.

SECOND, he didn't even show up to vote last week on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that is proposing the same thing for IRAN.

Shove it Obama.

To Theodore Kornegay,

You have a right to your own opinion, as does everyone else in this country. However, I am very much appalled at your commentaries on the two political parties. What you say is NOT true for either party.

If the Republicans really do exhibit "vitality, virginity, and purity", please explain to me president Bush's public deceptions and Idaho Senator Larry Craig's sex sting in that Minnesota airport bathroom (the arresting officer identified the senator's actions to be the equivalent of a gay man asking for sex). Similarly, if the Democrats are represented by "homosexuality, deviancy, delinquincy, and bestiality", Why are there movements to impeach Bush but none of the congressional Democrats?

I have to agree. I wouldn't vote for Hillary. Its very unclear what she is running on other than Bill nostalgia.

She supports offshore outsourcing, voted for the Iraq war, and as a citizen of NY since she has been in office, hasn't made a lick of difference as far as I am concerned.

Its time for some fresh ideas and new blood in the White House.

CNN deleted my comments the 2nd time when I wish to say something good about Hillary on this page! All I want to say is about polls, not personal attack. I just notice that there are lots of pro-Obama people on this thread, and I am taking a risk to say positive things abt Hillary!

Regina of MOnkroy says that Obama is ahead of Hillary by 8 pts in Iowa per Newsweek of Sept 27. My reference of Newsweek only shows 4 points difference. On the other hand, another poll two days later of Sept 29 shows that Hillary was ahead of Obama by 6 points, and she averages 3.5 points ahead of Obama in the most recent 4 polls.

Except Illinois and Idaho, Hillary is ahead of Obama in all other state primaries (39% vs 20%). For example, in new york, where many glorify Obama for having 25,000 attendees, Hillary has 44% while Obama only has 13% of dem votes which is even worst than a guy (al gore) who is not running.

If Obama loses Iowa, Michelle Obama said his whole election campaign will just be a dream (or nightmare). To me, even if Obma wins Iowa, Hillary will be the come back girl in the other states: New Hamshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida, Michegan, etc., etc.

Yeah, Castro and Bush say Hillary will get the dem nomination. Gingrich says her nomination is "almost certain".

Sorry to give you guys the bad news. LOL

To PL at the UN:

It is obvious from your many posts that you are 100% against Obama. Your only substance I have ever read for being pro-Clinton is the fact that she is a woman. While I would LOVE to have a woman as president, I also am wise enough to look at all the facts from the candidates before supporting one.

I ask you to PLEASE read about Obama…his book "The Audacity of Hope" would be a great one to start. Next would be to actually read his speeches.

Through that you would very soon realize that he spoke out against the war from the very beginning. He never claimed to vote against it…he did the correct, yet unpopular thing by being outspoken about the war from the very beginning.

Please get your facts straight before firing off falsehoods for all to read. Thank you.

I won't vote for a Democrat for Prez but I'll get behind Obama in an attempt to more unify our country. Hillary, whether justifiably or not, can not bring our country together.

Theodore, the pure, I'm thinking you need to move to a different country. You definitely do NOT belong here, where we pride ourselves on our diversity and our compassion and our ability to accept differences in others without judging them. You're not God, and my guess is He's not too happy with you right about now. Bye-bye, and don't let the country kick you in the @#* on the way out!

HI, BABY FACED SENATOR, YOUR CRITISISOM ON HILLARY THE FRONT RUNNER,OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY,HAS NO POLITICAL WISDOM.YOU ARE KICKING AT YOURSELF AND YOUR PARTY.iT IS BETTER AND TO BE WISE TO SUPPORT HER SO THAT YOU BOTH COULD MAKE A DIFFRENCE IN THE COMING ELECTION. AT PRESENT YOU CANNOT BE ECLLECTED BECAUSE OF YOUR INEXPERIENCE , AND YOUR BABY FACED PERSONALITY HAVE NO CHANCE AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING

Sue, Michigan

Obama never said that he would attack Pakistan. It's funny how most people who criticize Obama seem to do so out of ignorance.
Please people get you facts right. He said he would go after Bin Laden which was the main push for a war after 9/11. Would you rather have soldiers die in Iraq or die looking for Bin laden who attacked the US?
No wonder why Bush was elected twice. It's because people don't have their facts right regardless of the numerous sources of information at hand.

I am yet to hear from an Obama critic who does so out of pure facts

Finally Obama is fighting back — of course, in his civilized deliberative way. Keep it up– don't let the Clintons get away with miniaturizing your wide experience and huge potential as a great world leader.

Keep in mind, Hillary will be about 62 years old by the time she's inaugurated if she wins the primary(which is very unlikely).

I dont know about you, but most grandmas think about social security at that age, not about leading the most powerful country on the surface of this earth.

If you want to vote for a woman president, wait until the next younger and hotter female applies for the job.

Thanks "Sybil", but I happen to despise Fox News.

I do appreciate your comments, though.. Believe me, I know it's God's waiting room… every day on every road in the state…

"Firenze from Florida: You should also be sad you are from Florida because that is God's waiting room. You have been watching too much Fox news. It is not fair and balanced. It is twisted like your thoughts.
Posted By Sybil+ : September 30, 2007 9:02 pm "

a.thomas,

Fidel Castro, George Bush, and Newt Gingrich may have a say in the Republican nomination, but they have no say in who the Democratic candidate will be. Let's let Democrats decide who their candidate will be for once.

I still cannot understand how a Hillary Clinton who lived in Arkansas with Bill for twenty years and her family lived in Illinois, can run for, and represent New York state as a United States Senator. Come on people and wake up. She takes advantage of the loophold to run in New York. Her whole public office starts with a scam.

KATE, GRAND BLANC MICHAGAN… I am not interested in reading Obama's book and I don't think the guy at the UN is either. But, Jack's book, It's Getting Ugly Out There, is excellent. Actually, I think that Jack and Lou would make good running mates for the presidency, they would straighten out this mess.

First to Bill Evans: Take off the white hood when you call Mr. Obama "boy". Let him see your peasant red neck face.

Next: Does being married to the President count as "experience"? Just curious.

People, we don't want OR need BILLARY! Obama is the only correct choice.

a.thomas, new york, NY:

You write "…Newsweek only shows 4 points difference. On the other hand, another poll two days later of Sept 29 shows that Hillary was ahead of Obama by 6 points…"

This is a little intellectually dishonest of you to compare the two polls. The Newsweek poll shows Obama is ahead by four points among likely caucus goers. He is behind among Iowans overall. FWIW, the likely caucus goers is the more accurate poll for what would happen in IA if the caucus happened now (obviously it can and will change in the months ahead).

However the American Research Group poll you cite which states that Clinton is ahead, is merely polling all Iowans, not likely caucus attendees. Therefore you can not compare the two. In fact the two polls are similar as far as all Iowans are concerned but very few Iowans participate in the caucus. When more pollsters begin talking to the likely caucus goers you will have a more accurate representation of where voters happen to be at that time. The most accurate poll will be the one right before the caucus, similar to the ones that showed Kerry in 04 suddenly shoot to the top.

Sue in Michigan:

Where on earth are you getting your information. Barack Obama has never said that he wants to start a war with Iran. He actually made a very strong speech recently where he told GWB to hear loud and clear that there is no support for a war in Iran.

Hillary, on the other hand, voted yes on the Lieberman-Kyl amendment. This is viewed by many as the first step in an invasion of Iran.

Please site a source if you have one.

A.Thomas in N.Y.,

thank you for reminding us that Castro,Bush and Gingrich project Hillary Clinton as a Democratic nominee. However, considering their track record, I don't find their political opinions significant. I prefer my grandma's wisdom: "If you are praised by the enemy, you are doing something wrong."

I'll vote for Barack.

What , exactly, has Hillary accomplished? Sure she's been in the Senate longer than Obama and Barack has done more. A question of experience? Barack has held political office longer than Hillary. It should be considered a matter of good, sound judgement not experience. Look at all the 'experience' in the W.H. now. Obama is clearly the most logical reasonable choice.

The article says "This week marks the fifth anniversary of a speech Obama gave in 2002 opposing the Iraq war." It says nothing about him "voting." He opposed the war from the beginning.

"The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence." - Dr Ron Paul, Presidential Cadidate.

Dr. Paul has been against the war from the get go.

Sometimes it is as simple as trust. I trust Obama. I've been following his career for years. Im not committed to any party, but if Obama wins the Dem nom., he has my vote for president. I think he is honest, and the rest of the candidates are just politicizing.

I think the polls declaring Hillary the lead in the Democratic field are flat out wrong. No one has polled me and all the women I talk to on a regular basis. The polls are wrong so Hillary, do not get comfortable with your projected lead because it is not carved in stone.

Hillary has so much baggage, she carries too much negative weight to be president right now. The GOP want Hillary to be the Democratic nominee so they can tear her apart in the final race to the White House. Hillary is the GOP dream for their opponent. More importantly she is not the right candidate for the Dems. Hillary is wrong and so is her history with this political country. She is an angry woman thinking she can run this country like a man. Hillary and Bill together spell trouble in DC and I'm not referring to marital trouble, I am talking about truth, honesty, integrity, the characteristics of a true leader for our times, the characteristics the two of them run from at every given chance. We thought Bush might do some good for this country when he was elected 8 years ago but what a mess he has created along the way. I agree, the GOP needs Bush to hide under cover. His political family ties has weakened this country severely.

Obama has a positive character and inner strength and conviction that Hillary will never possess. Obama is a leader and a visionary. Hillary just wants power and will do anything to get it and her own stubborn way. She is relentless and so I say to Obama, keep your energy strong and clear because no one, not even Hillary can touch you then and finally it will be your turn to win and win big for our entire nation.

Obama is the best. Americans vote for the best Presidential candidate, Vote Obama and secure the chance for all of our children to have a better life, a cleaner life, and a life worth living. He will choose to do the right thing all of the time not just when it feels convenient.

Obama 08 and forever!

Obama is a good-for-nothing nincompoop. He hasn't done much for Illinois and now he wants to be President? Give me a break. There's not even a comparison to Hillary who is definitely world class. Obama is daydreaming if he thinks he's going to win. He just keeps on reapeating over and over that he voted against the war, that's all he can say pretty much. Why doesn't he explain his real estate dealings with a convict in Chicago, Mr. Rezco? What about those unpaid numerous parking tickets that he perhaps would not have paid if he wasn't running? And lastly, his wife's so tactless and not to mention ugly to be a First Lady. Just go back to the South Side, you belong there more than DC.

I'll make this plain and straight to the point!

Barack Obama has my vote and there is no doubt in my mind that he will win the nomination.

The Clintons will drag their feet with their old time news as Hillary's experience is masked with her husband's Presidency but we all must take the good with the bad… so since she's claiming his Presidency she also should claim his lies, indiscretions and more importantly… his slip up with letting Bin Laden go and for participating in the sectarian fighting in Iraq along with the Iran and Iraq war… and let's not forget the way he left the Office of the Presidency… by way of "The Impeachment of President Bill Clinton"

The American people does not have short term memory. We remember and we will never forget…

Hillary has lots of experience… experience in avoiding the real questions and how to smile and nod after dirty deeds have been performed.

Wow … I know there are still racial tensions in America, so it will be tough for Obama to win the Nomination, but if anyone can do it Obama is the man. We has a wide range of support, just look at is record breaking number of donors. These donors have only donated 50-250$ each that means he can go back and get more money. Most of Clinton's donors are tapped out, meaning they cant give anymore. Please for all the ignorant people out there this is an intellectual conversation. If you cannot converse on the level of an educated high school student please just read and learn. I will be voting for Obama because he is a fresh voice on the topics that are important to me. The black community are reluctant to vot for Obama because of the like of Sharpton and Jesse that have tainted the minds of Americans about blacks who want to be president. I would not vote for Clinton if she is given the nod. Bill needs to run is foundation and stay out of the politics. For the republicans you want to stand of virtue please stop it because you have none. You speak against gays yet you have the Foley, Craig, and The Ministers of are sleeping for guys and young boys, you can't even keep your marriage vows. You have leading candidates who have gone though multiple marriages. You have an idiot for president. Please just practice what you preach or shut your trap.

Obama is such an inspiration. What a phenomenal human being. I can't wait until he's our President!

pl at the UN, anyone else, etc..

Sure, you are technically right, Obama was not Senator…and we can choose to then deem his "word" a fallacy simply because there was not a vote attached to it. Technically, we could argue a lot of technical things, and then perhaps spend time coming up with who is technically right. And then what..?

Barack has openly been against the war from the start…he could never nail a vote to it, sure, so then you can argue his opinion meant nothing…really? The votes have been counted, we're at war, we have been for years now…why don't we give more credibility to the thought process of our potential candidates instead of grading track records. We could argue experience, ah should we count Hilary's time as second lady, or shouldnt we…and how about Barack being in the Senate for such a short amount of time..etc etc. Yes, experience matters…puting experience in front of actually analyzing the type of people and the types of things these people stand for…I'd say we're headed down the same route we're on.

Sure, as of now, I am for Obama, but that can change, and for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. Hillary does not seem like a bad candidate.

Those in office right now are quite experienced..where has that brought us? I am not preaching a vote for a candidate, I am simply asking for everyone to have perspective in their arguments. I am severely against abortion and it made me vote for Bush…my lack of perspective caused me to vote for the mess in office right now. Experience, stances on cliche key issues, etc plays a part on deciding who to vote for…but how about we see past these cliche standards and ask ourselves what is it that we actually need out of the next US president..and who has the spirit inside him or her to lead us, and essentially the world, in not only a respectable way, but in a way that will revolutionize the way politics is run.

Our founding fathers didn't have much experience, but they had something well beyond it–a selfless drive to create the best land they saw fit…a land to lead the rest. We need a candidate whose character can best lead the rest.

Senator Obama is what this country needs. We have had this dynasty ruling the country for almost 30 years and look where it's got us. We do not need more of that kind of experience.
We need the level head, intellect and judgment Obama brings.
Every once in a very great while we are presented with someone who transcends the usual politics and same old business. Obama is that rare gift and we need to accept it and let him transform our country from the dangerous path it's been on and the petty and ugly ways our society has grown to become.
The media may hype up Hillary but, she is a trojan horse to the correct candidate we should embrace.

Obama isn't going to win either way. The people that support him (young people and minorities) don't vote enough. He's screwed from the get-go. Young people are so excited about Obama, but they just don't vote. They haven't in years and they won't this time either. The best choice is Edwards. Southern Democrats have a proven record in the White House. The last time a Democrat NOT from the South was president was 45 years ago. Hillary is too polarizing, notably among Democrats. Edwards will be president, and it's a toss-up between Clinton and Obama as VP.

I am not from this planet so I cannot vote.

However I have been commanded to inform you that you must vote for Hillary because she is WOMAN !!! and men must do what she says.

On our planet we do not have this thing called woman.

Eric, New City, NY —

We might consider that Obama supporters, who are probably younger and more volubly excited than Clinton supporters would be more likely to identify themselves as likely caucus goers. But youth sometimes has the tendency to fail to follow through on great intentions. It would have been more interesting to see which candidate is most popular among voters who cast a ballot in 2004. I think that would have been more meaningful.

Congratulations CNN and Bill for getting the campaign sidetracked onto the experience thing. America needs leadership right now.

Leadership is about empathy, reconciliation, integrity and vision. One needs to ask whether Hillary (I can't feel your pain, but I think I have a headache coming on) connects with the voters at an emotional level.

One needs to ask whether Hillary is reaching out to all Americans, or whether a Hillary/Pelosi government will result in alienation on such a scale that Waco looks like a picnic.

One needs to ask where Hillary sees America in twenty years time. A nation that leads a peaceful and prosperous world in securing basic rights for all mankind, or a nation that is prepared to let others shape events and just go with the flow - wherever it may lead.

One needs to ask whether "Clinton lied but nobody died" is sufficient justification for a chief executive who held his people in such little regard that he could not be honest with them over a trivial issue like porking an intern at the office. If it was so easy to lie about the small things, it must have been a real no-brainer to lie about affairs of state that were really contentious.

Eric, New City, NY & A Thomas, New York, NY —

Actually, American Research Group stats are also of voters identifying themselves as likely caucus goers. So they are apples to apples.

Hillary can and will win the presidency. She is the most impressive candidate we have seen in a long time. Her intelligence, experience and leadership are stellar, and really place her in a class by herself. Her campaign has done a fabulous job, but ultimately it is up to her to win people over. She has done that very effectively.

Obama on the other hand remains one-dimensional, still spouting the same tiresome message about being 'fresh', while everything about him reeks of the same ol' same ol'. It is abundantly clear that's all he has in his arsenal. I'll be glad when the primaries are over so he will just go away.

A.A Manhattan, New York:

First of all, I am not buying the whole space alien bit. That is the worst attempt at humor I've ever seen.

If you have seen the future, keep your trap shut. To tell people of the past the deeds of the future would be a major violation of time travel laws.

Finally, call me ignorant, but at this time, I see Obama as the best candidate. You're gonna have to hit me with better evidence if you want to change my opinion.

If you haven't read "Dreams from My Father" by Senator Obama then you are not in the know for what this man is to accomplish, and whose eyes he shares.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3M-HFGPsGw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fmy%2Ebarackobama%2Ecom%2Fpage%2Finvite%2FAFLCIOforum

Quote of the century:

"I do not believe people running for president should engage in hypotheticals."
- Hillary Clinton

Think about that for a moment…

I heard while the democratic candidates were starting to bring out that same old 'reach out to the christian base routine', when they need votes- while their anchoring farleft anti christian group not only spotlights any religious mishap they can blow into a media circus in some more choking anti-Republican campaign, but many of that far left were on here spreading their message of a narrow minded look, at a book, that even when shut, is a representation of how they came to be in a free country, where they could get on to the ticker and show their appreciation. Dont worry its our custom to forgive you while were asking for donations to provide a diaper and clean drinking water for millions of children around the world whos only health care program is a malaria shot and an aids test. But that really doesnt matter if the democratic party, represented by Nancy, who have been to busy trying to win the presidency with nothing done on the congressional level, while ignoring some republcans behind the weather guy on the national map, who have a republican senator (for one)from Kansas waiting on some answers about something called "The FARM BILL",because its getting a little harder here trying to help feed the world in that area being affected by a lot of that 3D Doppler red stuff!

By the way, many, many, many of those people your reaching out to, "kind-of", voted for George Bush twice and would do it again if possible.

We elected someone with very little National/International political experience when we elected Bush, and look what we got ourselves into… a huge debacle. We must elect Hillary, someone that we know is capable of making decisions in the best interest of this country and get ourselves out of this huge mess. We are in such hot water, we just can't take a risk of anything unknown–things need to be straightened out and put back the way they were by someone who knows how they were first hand. As for Bill's marital indiscretions and dishonesty about his transgressions…it pales in comparison to the thousands of our children dieing in Iraq to fight a cause that was also presented dishhonestly. And unlike Bill Clinton who admitted indeed he did…lie, Bush is still insisting he told the truth.

To: Nancy Dallas, TX

Exactly, it is up to Hilary to win people over and I have news for you, she hasn't done so on the west coast. Hilary has too much stuff, background crap that will keep her from getting the votes needed. Yes, it would be great to have a female, first female president in the US but Hilary is not the right one, believe me. I would never waste my vote because I thought we needed a woman, that is insane thinking. Unless of course it was a woman with integrity, clear vision and no Clinton white house baggage. Albeit a nice idea, first woman pres. but very limited in its execution. Hilary does not have the integrity and promise that is needed as the next leader of the free world. She has the same ol same ol. She is wishy washy - she votes yes when it suits her and votes no when it doesn't.

I will tell you though, Edwards has the passion and the true essential spirit to be an astounding US President. He is not afraid to tell the truth, something Hilary will never, and I repeat NEVER do, nor did her super husband. If you think you can get a Clinton to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, the American public has senility.

Also, If I made the kind of money Edwards made, and I didn't have my stylist on salary, I would easily spend $400 for a haircut. How much does Laura Bush spend on her coif? Why doesn't the media dig that info up???Ask Oprah, she is a billionairess, how much she spends to get her haircut … oh yeah she owns her own hairstylist so that is different… or is it? She pays him a salary which I am sure is a 6 figure scream. If you've earned your own money, it doesn't matter how you spend it as long as you are not hurting other people because of your choices. PLUS look at it this way, the stylist for Edwards is smart. He is worth $400 for a haircut and he has found a clientele to support his talent. I call that capitalism, something the GOP loves, making money, lots of money.

GO EDWARDS, 2008, EDWARDS will be the next
US PRESIDENT in 2008.

I don't know if anyone notices this, but it seems to me that Obama has much more support on forums like this. When we (the people on this blog) talk about Clinton, you get one or two that support her and 98% against her. When we talk about Obama I hear a lot of positive messages about why he gets some people's support, along with an occasional negative message. I think the people already know what's about to come, and the main stream media is playing catch up. Obama is the future and CNN/MSNBC just hasn't realized it yet.

Obama offers the best hope for change. Anybody with commonsense can see that like the roman empire of old, this political stalemate will be the death of us unless a different wind blows through.

To add to Lee's arguement, the Clinton's are now tied to the Bush's so not one, but two family dynasties will still be running D.C. People seriously want Clinton's wife in office??

I'm pretty sure that the age restriction on the Presidency is 35 and above, so all of this talk about him being too young and too inexperienced is a bunch of garbage. It's basically the only arguement that the Clintons have on Barack because he is so well rounded. IF all of you give into that nonsense, you may as well not vote because it is going the wrong way.

It's time for a change and anybody who doesn't vote for Barack Obama may as well be voting for Dick Cheney to run this country. Barack is the best solution to all of our problems and he can re-establish our identity in the world.

symbolically Obama is the right choice to win in 2008 for he represents a true shift in the American political forum, he's black and he is fresh with great ideas as well as articulate and practical. if true lasting political change is to happen here in america, then obama will take the big win in 2008.

NO to clinton, YES to OBAMA in 2008

Count me in as a republican convert, Mr. O wins.
Both Obama and HRC have values that are not in my best interests, though I believe both are better positioned to restore our dignity as a people than any current republican candidate

It appears that experience is a "push" between Mr. O and HRC. What I care about is judgment. Mr. O seems to be on the right track.

Thinking that HRC would take us back to where Bill left off is lunacy. The 1990's economic boom wasn't because of Bill, it was largely because of the high tech boom including the Internet, and the fact that PCs had become affordable to millions of people, and to almost every employee in corporate America. Bill was in the right place at the right time. He took advantage and was credited for the outcome of