I ask those of you who are against Hillary for President to please lay out FACTS, not a case of he said, she said. Thank you.
George

"Everybody else on the ballot is doomed," Ford said, explaining what would happen if Obama were nominated. "Every Democratic candidate running on that ticket would lose because he's black and he's at the top of the ticket—we'd lose the House, the Senate, and the governors and everything."

how stupid for state senator Ford ( an african american) to say that..very low opinionated of the black race, he is one of those few blacks that rise up and looks down on his own people.it's not race or gender that matters, it is who is qualified. Obama has better judgement.

Edwards is the best friend the middle class and disadvantaged are gonna have as president for a long time. Don't miss this opportunity.

Posted By Jonathan Drake, Columbus, Ohio : December 4, 2007 2:09 pm

Well Mr. Drake,

The actual question was "(Asked of Republicans and independents who lean to the Republican Party) Which candidates would you be most likely to support for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, or if you would support someone else."

You can say they haven't heard of him all you want, but the answer still is Paul 4%, McCain 15%, and Thompson 15%. As you can see only 4% support him, as compared to 15% for McCain and Thompson. So you can see that he is in no way shape or form, virtually tied with Mcain or Thompson. As of this moment 94% of the people questioned, do not support Ron Paul, that is why he gets little to no coverage.

Four years ago, I heard a woman talking about how how much she hates negative advertising. I asked her who she was going to vote for. She said, "I haven't decided yet, but I'm certainly not going to vote for a flip-flopper and coward like Kerry!"

After recent weeks and the personal attacks, I strongly now see the best choice and my vote will go to CLINTON, we need her contacts as well as the great relationships President Clinton has with other countries and experience, to work together so that other counties will share the bill and world security. We do not have time to play politics with the likes of obama and rest of these guys…
John Edwards would be an outstanding VP for Hillary

CLINTON 2008, the true SMART choice

And when you consider that some of the most experienced politicians in Washinton have led us to some of the most disasterous policies in this country's history, it seems obvious to me why experience might not be a central issue for many Americans.

Experience and good judgement are two different things Mr. Clinton.

Wrong. Ron Paul doesn't believe that specifically, but he does believe, correctly, that there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment which classifies the types of weapons which private citizens are allowed to possess. He is a strict constructionist. I do not personally believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms at all (as it states that citizens may possess firearms as the result of being part of a militia; this would seem to imply that a member of any armed force or unit dedicated to the protection of a town, city, or state would also qualify, but not individuals with no affiliation to any of these groups) but I can read well enough to see that there's nothing in the Constitution which discusses specific firearms. This is a case of a guaranteed freedom somehow being a bad thing.

2: Believes in the "war on Christmas".

If you mean that there is a growing trend to secularize anything and everything in this country, then I'd go along with that. It's become increasingly obvious that US culture is more concerned with offending anyone by merely mentioning, or god forbid, celebrating, long-standing religious institutions such as Christmas. When companies and even people are so afraid to wish someone "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Kwanzaa" for fear of offending, intimidating, or alienating them, it is a sad state indeed. Normal people find this stupid, and while the founders of the Constitution did make it clear that a state religion should not be established, they also were religious men and that clearly influenced their thinking when writing it. For us to ignore that would also be stupid.

3: Opposes network neutrality.

It would be more accurate to say that Ron Paul opposes government regulation of any kind on the Internet. It would also be accurate to say that Ron Paul opposes taxing the Internet like many of our fine Congresspeople want to do. Network neutrality is another word for the government sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong, messing up free trade.

4: Is staunchly pro-life.

Yes, but be also believes that the legal issue must be left up to the states and there should be no federal interference, no marriage ban, no amendments to the Constitution regarding abortion or marriage. The reason is that it is not up to the federal government to force the states to recognize marriages or abortion laws they wouldn't otherwise.

5: Opposes the existence of the Department of Education.

And the Department of Energy and the IRS and many other government agencies which only serve to further the interests of the federal government messing with things that are state issues. Schools are run by the states, energy is run by private enterprise and neither need to be regulated by the government; in fact regulation by these agencies stifles growth and prosperity.
I have read from teachers where they disagreed with every one of Dr. Paul's positions except abolishing the Dept. of Education. Clearly, those who are bound by its policies are not exactly happy with it. There are other major candidates who are also in favor of eliminating waste and cutting spending in order to protect the US economic system as well.

6: Opposes individual democracy by opposing direct-election of senators and supporting the electoral college.

Abolishing the electoral college could also weaken the power of individual voters by giving disproportionate power to higher populated states on the east and west coast. It is up to the states how to cast their electoral votes, so if they wanted a more representative election process, they could do any number of things, not the least of which would be to apportion their electoral votes according to the distribution of the popular vote in the districts, instead of awarding them all to the candidate with the highest number of votes. California is entertaining a bill that would do this and 2 other states already do. This is a complex issue with no good solution for those who are dissatisfied with the electoral college.

7: Opposes the existence of the Department of Energy.

Likely for the same reasons as the IRS and Dept. of Education.

The guy wants to put this nation back basically on the course it was on in the nineteenth century. I understand that he has the appeal of standing up for his principles, but his principles would damage the country.

No, he wants to return the country to the way it was governed in the 19th century, in which the civil liberties of its citizens were not hampered by excess regulation, and the size of government was not as monstrous as it is now, where the power of the people was more important than the needs of the state. It is apparent that you don't truly understand the reasons behind his positions, but I suggest you delve a little deeper. You will find that Ron Paul's message is all about hope for this country, individual freedom for all, and keeping the government out of our lives where it does not belong. That is why I and so many others support his candidacy and his election would be a huge step forward to ending this corruption and fallacy that we need to sacrifice freedom to have prosperity.

They just don't bother asking questions about people who aren't in a position to win. Until Ron Paul breaks into the mainstream–which, despite his ardent support here, he has failed to do–the mainstream media probably won't pay too much attention to him. It's not bias against his views, just his popularity.

Posted By Steve, Landing, NJ : December 4, 2007 3:32 pm

I disagree. How can you know who is in a position to win before a single vote has been cast? The fact that he has raised more money this quarter than ALL candidates last quarter, and is actually raising more money than most of his rivals puts him in a very good position to win. Aside from this, if CNN lets polls dictate their coverage, why don't they cover that he has won half of all straw polls he participated in, including the most recent one in Virginia? With the media wielding such enormous power over the information we see and hear about this election, you would think they would want to inform us on ALL the candidates, if they were truly interested in fair journalism. However, they are only interested in covering the top 3, so the media chooses our candidates for us.

Don't let this happen. Do your research and vote your conscience, not just what the media, the party, and the establishment tells you to. There is no such thing as "wasting your vote". This nonsense is propagated by the news too but it is total rubbish.

Freedom of information, freedom for us! Ron Paul 2008!

Yes, Paul was left out of that poll question. So were Tancredo, Biden, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, and Hunter. Notice how only people who had double-digits in the last question had a question devoted entirely to them?

Huckabee was ignored the same way until very recently. They just don't bother asking questions about people who aren't in a position to win. Until Ron Paul breaks into the mainstream–which, despite his ardent support here, he has failed to do–the mainstream media probably won't pay too much attention to him. It's not bias against his views, just his popularity.

And look what happened to Gore, he gave up an election that he should've cake-walked. Fact is, the majority of Americans never stopped liking Bill Clinton.

'Course, that's no reason to vote for his wife.

I believe Ron Paul's a stand-up guy, I'm just not sure what the average person thinks he's going to accomplish for the country. All I hear about him is that he's a genuine guy, not a politicians, stands by his beliefs, etc. etc. Not why anyone thinks his beliefs are the correct ones.

Just remember what you are voting for, that's all. Remember when you vote for Hillary you are voting for the far left, the people who have equated church going Americans to these extremists who want this teacher killed. The woman who has said, "We are going to take things from you for the common good" (Hillary's exact words). You want to vote for Marxism and hate, go for it.

EVERYONE VOTE! it is your duty as a citizen.

its kind of funny to notice that bill clinton is able to speak so well of Hillary and pump up her qual's…and NO ONE running for prez in the GOP wants bush [closest thing for them to their top leadership] anywhere near them.

tells ya somethin.

Posted By scott,manchester NH : December 4, 2007 11:12 am "
Hey Scott I seem to remember Al Gore and other democrats running as far as they could from Clinton a few years back. I think that tells you something too!

I am from Tennessee and while I did vote for Harold Ford Jr., I only did so because I wanted the Democrats to take control of the Senate. The Ford family has been a dominant and corrupt force in Tennessee (specifically Memphis) politics for a long time. 3 members of the Ford family have held public office in Tennessee and been indicted on federal charges. Ford's uncle John is on trial right now for bribery charges. The fact of the matter is, Tennesseans outside of Memphis do not trust the Ford family and rightfully so.

That having been said, I am 100% behind Barack Obama for president. In terms of Souther electability, he is the strongest Democratic candidate to appeal to Southern voters (arguably Edwards is stronger). People conveniently ignore that his strong Christian fate is the perfect way to counter weakening support by the Souther n Baptist set for the Republican party. Hilary Clinton is so unelectable in the South it's not even funny. The Democratic Party will be shooting itself in the foot if it nominates Hilary Clinton.

Barack Obama is both the most electable Democratic candidate and the best candidate. OBAMA 08

- HILLARY HAS GONE UP 20 POINTS

- OBAMA HAS GONE DOWN 5 POINTS

Obama has wasted his $80 million raised!

HURRAH HILLARY! You go girl.
Hillary 08!

Obviously I know all there is no know about libs since I knew that a lib like you could not respond to my comments without rewriting them.

So since you could not respond to what I typed and had to change it to what you could respond to, that shows you know I'm right and you are just another lib who sees Church going Americans as the same or even worse people as those calling for that teachers death.

Posted By Doug, New Jersey : December 4, 2007 2:05 pm

Doug,
I'm a 'church going' person myself and I happen to believe that we are much better than the fanatics who called for the execution of that innocent teacher. It appear that you have a big problem with people who aren't on the same page with you politically speaking.

BTW- I've never encountered anyone in my church who has as much anger and hatred for fellow American's as you do. You must be one of those church goers who believe as long as you show up on Sunday you can treat people anyway that you want to Monday – Saturday.
Get some help Doug- I would suggest anger management or perhaps just opening the bible and reading it might be a start.

The guy wants to put this nation back basically on the course it was on in the nineteenth century. I understand that he has the appeal of standing up for his principles, but his principles would damage the country.

Well, Russ, if you look at the polling data itself, you will find that there is a long list of questions, stating things like, "do you support, not support, or have you never heard of...Hillary Clinton/Rudy Giuliani/Mitt Romney", etc. You will find, if you read through all of the questions, those polled were not asked if they supported, did not support, or had never heard of Ron Paul. He was omitted from the poll. At the very bottom, the general question is asked of who you would most support in the Republican/Democrat primary (or some question to that effect). Here's where you see your 4%. Nice.

As for the claim of Ron Paul supporters being truthers, white supremacists, and people with tin foil hats...it's strange to me that for someone so "enlightened" as yourself, Dean from Ottawa, you obviously have not investigated Ron Paul's message for yourself. Here. http://www.ronpaul2008.com

The man does not exist outside of truthers, white supremacists and people who wear with tin foil hats.:
Care to back that up with any facts, Dean? That's a pretty wide brush you swing. I am sure that all the other Ron Paul supporters were as smart as you.

He isn't mentioned because any mention would be a waste of space.
Your faith in the veracity of mainstream media is touching, Dean. I am sure that you place complete trust in the integrity and the ethics of media, learn what you are told, bury your critical thinking, and swallow whatever pablum they feed you.

I understand. I was like you once. It's hard when you grow up and enter the working force that things aren't quite what they tell you in school. My first awakening is when I learned about the JFK assassination. It's hard to learn that the establishment isn't looking out for you like they said they would.

I suggest you look around, Dean. If you are an intelligent person, don't be restrained by your own biases. The internet offers you a wonderful opportunity to learn things after you read the paper and watch the news. Re-discover yourself. Trigger your critical thinking skills again.

Open your eyes, man.

Ron Paul cured my apathy.

Obviously I know all there is no know about libs since I knew that a lib like you could not respond to my comments without rewriting them.

So since you could not respond to what I typed and had to change it to what you could respond to, that shows you know I'm right and you are just another lib who sees Church going Americans as the same or even worse people as those calling for that teachers death.

Why there are more negative news about Hillary than Obama? For example, why CNN shows the negative, but unfounded, comments of an obama supporter, Reicht, about Hillary? Why CNN does not report negative comments from a hillary supporter?

There have been biased comments from CNN anchors. For example, Glenn Beck (who has a 1-hr show at 7pm) said he was a republican, and he talked about american people do not like Hillary.

It appears that CNN wants Obama to win the nomination, so that the republican nominee can win more easily.

CNN looks like the Fox news network these days!

Worry about your own country. Have you even looked at what he stood for? What specific points do you not like about him? Provide some substance please.

You heard it here first.