A CNN focus group weighed in on the Democratic debate Thursday.
JOHNSTON, Iowa (CNN) - In interviews conducted immediately after Thursday's Des Moines Register debate, most of the 23 undecided Democratic voters surveyed said they thought former Sen. John Edwards came out on top and said he would get their vote if the election were held today.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois placed second in a focus group conducted by CNN when asked who would get their vote, and Sen. Hillary Clinton was the third choice.
Some of the 14 women and 9 men said they were swayed by Thursday's debate:
two said they decided to support Clinton, two said they decided to back Edwards, and one said she was going to vote for Obama.
– CNN's Mary Snow and Shirley Zilberstein
A lot of ultra-conservative Republicans are praying that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee, because Edwards or Obama would be infinitely harder to beat. Please give Edwards' positions a closer look. He's the best candidate by a mile!
Edwards has my vote!
I decided that I will vote for no Republican ever again, not that Dems are much better but the current President has made it so I can never vote Republican Again. So that leaves Obama, Hillary and John. Starting with Hillary–I can't stand her–she's calculating, ambitious, disingenuous, just like her husband, and a lot less personable. She's claiming 35 years experience–as what? First lady of a rinky dink redneck state and then as of the US. Neither position is elected and neither qualifies as "experience" if you ask me. By the way who says experience should be the big factor here? Our founders had the good sense to leave the job to only native borns over the age of 35 as I recall. So that leaves Obama or Edwards..I like them both. I wish they'd make a deal to become a ticket..they'd knock out Hillary and probably clean the floor with the Republican Flip Floppers and the Fundamentalist.
Go John, Go Obama, either one. I'll vote for Obama first–I think he's the most likely one for a complete change, but I can easily vote for John should he come out on top.
–I'm a registered independent.
Its amazing to me how Clinton supporters or Obama supporters can have the audacity to claim that they are not getting fair, unbiased coverage from CNN. There are more candidates in this race than CNN likes to acknowledge. How about CNN pays more attention to the Biden campaign and the great progress he has been making (despite the media's reluctance to cover him) in Iowa?
SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON IS GOING TO MAKE A GREAT PRESIDENT.
Hey, Iowa! Why did you disqualify Dennis Kuchinich form you little party? Maybe he would talk about Impeaching the criminal in the White House? Personally I'll take an Edwards/Kuchinich ticket or a Kuchinich/Edwards ticket. That way one can get this occupation over with and the other can file charges against Bush/Cheney and Co. for war crimes and Treason. It is treason for outing an active Valerie Plame. As for war crimes- -lying to Congress to get us into this farce, torture, and because of the lie we can't begin to count the number of dead Iraqi citizen's, but we do know how many American Father's, Mother's, Sister's, Brother's, Nephew's, Neices, Grandchildren, Boyfriends, Girlfriends and loved ones that have been lost. Saddam was hanged for murdering less. Just because he leaves office he is still guilty of his crimes and should be prosecuted. Iraq shoud extradite them and try them under Iraqi Law.
HILLARY WILL BE IMPEACHED LIKE HER HUBBY. IF SHE IS NOT THE NOM? SHE WILL DIVORCE HIM I BET-LMAO
Obama can be trusted to tell the truth only if you are too stupid or brainwashed to know what the truth is.
He claimed he wasn't planning on running for President as long as the other candidates. Yet it is well documented that he has been planning on running for president since he arrived in the Senate, since he was in law school, and even since he was in grade school. Now when these things are pointed out his response is not to attempt to defend himself by claiming that he was in fact telling the truth, (or admitt he was lying); but rather to respond by making the issue that people were talking about his childhood. Apparently his childhood is only relevant when he is claiming it as his foreign policy experience.
No one was criticizing Mr. Obama's drug use per se, simply pointing out that it opens the door for all sort of messiness in a general election. The larger point is that we don't know alot about Mr. Obama and that carries a risk. His popularity is largely a honeymoon period he benefits from because he hasn't been in the public eye for long. To confuse that for electability is quite ignorant. Mr. Obama's willingness to discuss this so openly puts him in a very tough position. When it becomes an issue in the general election he will have to address it at lenght or risk being a hypocrite. This will not be a help to him. I also find it quite hypocritical for the Obama camp to constantly stress Clinton's high negatives, but when th Clinton camp points out vunlerabilties of Obama in the general election that is wrong.
I also heard that the Obama camp claimed that the Clinton camp has gone negative because they were losing when the race was positive. It is clear that Mrs. Clinton began to slip after the Philadelphia debate when the entire democratic feild went negative against her including Mr. Obama. For the Obama camp to now claim that Mrs. Clinton went negative first is the type of bold face lie that has become the mark of Obama. Railing against the system does not mean you are telling the truth. It just makes you lies all the more hypocritical.
BEWARE OF A SHEEP IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING.