(CNN) – It’s a sprint to the finish for the presidential field in the final hours before New Hampshire’s Tuesday primary – and CNN will be there to provide complete coverage in the Granite State. If you missed CNN’s brand-new Ballot Bowl programming this weekend, you can still watch Sunday’s campaign trail highlights here:
Video: Edwards campaigns in N.H.
Video: Obama: 'In two days time'
Video: McCain on Iraq
Video: Huckabee campaigns in N.H.
Video: Romney: It's 'a critical time'
Video: Giuliani's philosophy
Video: Clinton: 'That's not change'
Video: Richardson: Race a 'marathon'
Video: New poll: the N.H. horse race
–CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart
I believe the in the aspirations of the American Constitution and strongly support Barack Obama as he stands with its principals.
Hillary had 35 years with Bill in Office and the economic surplus is simply the bull market of capitalism thats gave us the good times. We enjoyed it from our own hard work and mean time Hillary was busy spending lobbyists funds while Bill got in trouble with moral ethics in the white house.
We, the American people, have had enough and we want wisdom not experience with straight talk plus honesty in the next president.
Barak Obama has proven wisdom, insight and strength in his achievements with passion for a positive change.
Lets vote for Barack Obama, he will lead us to a better America and a safer world.
Seems you have left out any information about Kucinich. Don't you have enough reporters? I think many in the nation would like to know what he is doing and it appears you might be one of those "campaign killers" that you aired this evening on CNN
Praise to McGovern for his suggestion: impeach Bush & Cheney. What is the Congress waiting for? – – – Response to another comment: Barack Obama can't be everywhere. He has accomplished amazing things in Chicago. He is exceptionally intelligent, smart & wise for his age, and articulate; not the average American qualifications. Let us be grateful.
I'm deeply concerned that all the "Republican" candidates laughed at Ron Paul's assessment of our foreign policy.
First we have a former Mayor of one of the most corrupt cities in the US claiming his stance on foreign policy should trump that of a multiple term congressman. All because he presided over the collapse of the twin towers. I'm sorry, but last I checked, if a catastrophe happens on your watch, you didn't do your job. And lets not forget you were pretty much a liberal before the unfortunate events of 9/11.
Second, we have a former Governor who has switched his stance more times than Peyton Manning at the line of scrimmage. He also employs illegal immigrants at his mansion.
Third, we have a Senator from TN who is best known for his appearances on Law & Order. Sorry, but fictional cases don't count, senator. And you laughing at Dr Paul's assertions...assertions that are backed by scholars throughout the world...speak volumes about your ignorance.
Next, is the former Gov. of Arkansas. He presided over what? His state went from 49th to 47th in education. That's not something to be proud of. Also, quit trying to adopt Dr. Paul's stances. You have no intention of reverting back to a constitutional government. If you did, you wouldn't be pandering to the religious right.
And finally, the Senator from Arizona, who claims his combat experience trumps everyone else in the foreign policy debate. Mr. McCain, you should actually take the time to study our nations history before you spout off to the American public that your policy is gospel. history proves that you are, in fact, wrong "sir."
It saddens me that these men dismiss out of hand a foreign policy they've never considered. If they'd considered it, this country wouldn't be in the mess it finds itself in.
With Joe Biden dropping out, I have to choose somebody else. Senator Clinton has the ace-in-the-hole in her husband which is, for me, her strongest case. I think Barak is a much better negotiator, but John Edwards would fight for the middle class, which is what most of us are. Therefore, I will not hesitate to vote for whomever gets the Democratic nomination and will feel confident he/she would do better than the administration we have endured for these past two terms.
Here is one simple reason why Obama will lose:
Obama voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive? Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA)
Even if he wins Democratic nominee, the Republican will use that against him in the general election.
Experience does not necessarily mean GOOD experience. The Clintons are beholden to the same monied interests that control both parties in Congress today (due to constant and costly campaign fundraising). Hillary is beholden to the special interests who are funding her campaign and would lobby her after her election. Remember the Sub-prime housing loan crisis?: President Clinton's Wall Street-loving Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin changed the rules to let commercial banks do what they had been prohibited from doing since the Great Depression, namely bundling home mortgages as if they were commercial paper, thereby avoiding corporate responsibility and financial risk. (Treasury Secretary Rubin then was promoted to Chairman of Citibank, which is one of the prime offenders in the Subprime crisis. Did no one learn from the earlier Savings & Loan Crisis? When it comes to greed, Clinton Democrats were no different from Reagan Republicans.) Remember bankruptcy reform?: The credit card companies and banks won, at the expense of consumers driven to bankruptcy by uninsured health care costs, thanks equally to both political parties in Congress. Likewise, the Clintons and the Bushes love the Saudis and other Middle East oil countries equally. They have been bought off by them. Those are BAD experiences for America. Like the Clintons' propensity for gutter politics. Enough with these Democrat Karl Roves! Go Obama!
What the heck has happened to the GOP? They use to be about peace, small government and saving money. Now they are the opposite. Ron Paul is the only guy who is genuine and they treat him like a crazy person. O' well, America land of the free and home of the brave, Or at least it used to be.
Obama he has managed to avoid media bias against Clinton. "Obama, through an unprecedented convergence of luck has never before faced serious attack yet, Media refuses to show he is a phony, someone whose lofty rhetoric isn't born out in his own public record. His lack of foreign policy experience and showing he isn’t ready to lead in a dangerous world. His votes in the Senate to fund the Iraq war even as he tried to position himself as the strongest anti-war candidate. facts show he always supports the war, voted twice in 2006 against bringing America's troops back home, votes for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater, voted with Bush on posturing S 433 which allows the Bush to suspend any troop withdrawal! Record also shows Obama faced with tough choices always gave in to pressure from Bush admin and corporate lobbyists. Obama voted for Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies, voted with Repub to allow credit card companies to raise interest rates over 30 percent, increasing hardship for families. "He talks about change but has no real record of making change. Lastly his use of the race card will not play well nationally, We are absolutely sick of obama saying hes not running on race, but thats all he offering and all we are talking about!!!!, he is a self proclaimed Black Racist. Again media attacks Romneys Mormon faith but refuses to discuss obama church. Go to website to know what he believes. http://www.tucc.org/about.htm. I think the media needs to be held accountable! ALL the candidates should have been given the same treatment. All these OLD men who own these media outlets are afraid of an educated strong woman like Senator Clinton. Is why they attack her on clothes, wrinkles etc...And refuse to show her in any positive light. They have completely lost CREDIBILITY CNN, MSNBC etc...Are just the “Enquire on TV.
A lot of people have dubbed this the "change vs experience" election. However, it has been implied way too often that we have to choose between change and experience, while i think a good balance of both is necessary. Thatis why I will vote Clinton. Obama undoubtedly promises to bring the most change, but he brings nothing on the experience side. Clinton, on the other hand promises a fair amount of change – the first woman president, a Democrat following a Republican president, a renewed focus on health care and America's image abroad. But she also brings a lot on the experience side – she was working on impeaching Nixon before Obama had finished college. She has spent 7 years in the senate and army generals unanimously admit her superior national security knowledge, she brings with her a team of people that include a former President and a Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. So between a promise of plenty of change and no experience and one of moderate change and plenty of experience, I definitely choose the latter.
MANCHESTER, N.H. - Obama campaign violating state law by placing automated phone calls to numbers on the Do Not Call list. Former State Rep. Sandy Keans, a from Rochester, said she received a call.“This afternoon, I received a pre-recorded phone message from the Obama campaign attacking Senator Clinton even though I am on the Do-Not-Call List," Keans said.
Senator Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson placed fourth. But did they really earn their finishing positions? The answer may be surprising. In the now past ABC New Hampshire debate before the January 8th first-in-the-nation primary, the rules were that only the candidates who finish in the top four slots in Iowa could participate, meaning that second-tier candidates who placed fourth could live on to continue their campaign another day. In the last hours before the Iowa caucuses Obama, who wanted to pad his victory and hedge his bets, approached Joe Biden with this, proposal: In precincts where Biden had a local official loyal to him, and if Biden wasn't viable, then Senator Biden would tell his organizers to move his supporters over to Obama en mass. Conversely, in precincts where Obama had more than enough supporters, he would lend people to Biden to ensure Biden a fourth place finish so that he could,continue Joe Biden actually considered the proposal. An anonymous source close to Biden told the Washington Post that the strategy could be "viability for victory."When the media found out, Obama's camp admitted that the conversation took place. Biden, who when asked about the proposal at a campaign event said that the deal could "probably" help both campaigns; however he later rejected the deal on "moral grounds," a source in Biden's Iowa organization told the Rev. Rob Times on condition of anonymity. History recorded that Joe Biden placed fifth in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race. On January 4, the day after the caucus, the New York Times reported strong rumors that Obama made the same deal to Bill Richardson that he previously offered to Biden, only this time the deal was accepted.The Times article describes not only the rumors, but gives an eye-witness account and confession of an Obama official telling Richardson supporters that a pact had indeed been made between the two candidates. "That's what the leadership has said," admitted Deb Copeland, an Obama volunteer as reported by the New York Times. "What we're concerned about is we heard of a few people going to Hillary. And we want to keep you together," she told the Richardson supporters at the 64th precinct. Volunteers for the Biden campaign told the Rev. Rob Times that Obama organizers used the same speech about a "pact" to lure supporters in at least two precincts where Biden was only a few supporters shy of viability.Representatives from both the Obama and Richardson campaigns deny that such a deal was ever struck, yet first hand testimonies clearly paint a far different picture. The Effect in the end, the effect of backdoor wheeling and dealing between campaigns is that Richardson's fourth place finish could be artificial, and Obama's victory margin is larger than it would have been in a democratic system. Our democracy is based, in part, on the concept of "one man, one vote," and a vote by a secret ballot, free from the judging eyes of neighbors and the media, free from bribery, and free from the influence of political activists. Had the Iowa contest been based on a ballot, and had caucus voters cast a single vote for the candidate of their choice as is the most fair method of picking a president, then Obama may have come in second and Richardson in fifth. If Obama's victory margin had been smaller, or if he placed second, then the dynamic of the race would have changed drastically. Edwards, Clinton, and even Biden may have all come out of Iowa in stronger positions than any of them have.In part, the system is to blame, but those who took advantage of it and exploited it for their own purposes, namely Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, are not without culpability and their misdeeds should be remembered in the minds of voters.
Senator Edwards, I would NOT vote for you because you are making your case only on of the expense of Hilary Clinton.
Gentleman?! What is it? On the debate you ware like a Hyena over her, before her suit... Is that a simple jealousy lire most of American women (surprise for me, even Pakistanis are more advance in this meter and Bhutto was killed from her enemies).
Second, do you deny that "Clinton's machine" work peaty well for americans for 8 years ?
It is partly your fault. Why didn't you win the Election in 2000? Now you are blaming Hilary that America is really in a big ...
You still play your ego agenda, Sur! Obama will be chewed and spit from Republicans, because he has not very much to offer then word "Change" (He sounds to me like those communist leaders who had been feeding the people only with nice word and hopes of future almost heavenly life; UTOPIA, eh , worked for some period).
Americans , please, just do not compare him with JFK.
If you really are talking from your heard, it is not late you to make some REAL CHANGE- make sure Democrat to be in the Oval office this time even that is not you.
As I rite on a CNN goes a Braking New about Iranians? I imagine Senator Obama in the Oval office with pence full of..
Wake up Americans, it is very serious , do not blow it again!
It's high time that hillary stop talking about her experience and try to look for a strategy to win the peoples vote.
Try again. H.C. doesn't have 35 years of experience so your example was poor.
I think that it's high time that Hillary stop talking about her experience and try to look for a way or strategy to win the peoples vote.It's high time that she stops chasing shadow and face the substance.She should make hay while the sun shines.
Where are the Ron Paul highlights? He was in the ABC debate and made some excellent points. At the very least, he should have been listed. Looks like CNN is is starting to go the way of Fox News and omit candidates – shame on you.
Let's face it if Hillary Clinton was not in this race,Obama and Edwards would be extolling the successes of the Clinyon Administration and what we had back then compared to now. Obama is no JFK or RFK, no experience, just a lot of pretty talk.Hillary knows how to talk the talk and walk the walk. Also I'm so ashamed of the women in this country we finally havea smart, intelligent woman in the mainstream of politics and some womenare trying to deny her breaking the glass ceiling. It just goes to show women are still jealous other women and need to have a man telling them what is good for them GO HILLARY......
Let's face it if Hillary Clinton was not in this race,Obama and Edwards would be extolling the successes of the Clinton Administration and what we had back then compared to now. Obama is no JFK or RFK, no experience, just a lot of pretty talk. Hillary knows how to talk the talk and walk the walk. Also I'm so ashamed of the women in this country we finally have a smart, intelligent woman in the mainstream of politics and some women are trying to deny her breaking the glass ceiling. It just goes to show women are still jealous of other women and need to have a man telling them what is good for them GO HILLARY......
OBAMA DOESN"T HAVE A RECORD!!
Obama's Views Have Changed With Time
By CHRISTOPHER WILLS – Dec 22, 2007
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — If he wanted, the Barack Obama of today could have a pretty good debate with the Barack Obama of yesterday. They could argue about whether the death penalty is ever appropriate. Whether it makes sense to ban handguns. They might explore their differences on the Patriot Act or parental notification of abortion.
And they could debate whether Obama has flip-flopped, changed some of his views as he learned more over the years or is simply answering questions with more detail and nuance now that he is running for president.
The Democratic senator from Illinois hasn't made any fundamental policy shifts, such as changing his view on whether abortion should be legal. But his decade in public office and an Associated Press review of his answers to a questionnaire show positions changing in smaller ways.
Taken together, the shifts could suggest a liberal, inexperienced lawmaker gradually adjusting to the realities of what could be accomplished, first in the Illinois Legislature and then the U.S. Senate.
On the other hand, political rivals could accuse him of abandoning potentially unpopular views or of trying to disguise his real positions.
Take the death penalty.
In 1996, when he was running for a seat in the Illinois Senate, Obama's campaign filled out a questionnaire flatly stating that he did not support capital punishment. By 2004, his position was that he supported the death penalty "in theory" but felt the system was so flawed that a national moratorium on executions was required.
Today, he doesn't talk about a moratorium and says the death penalty is appropriate for "some crimes — mass murder, the rape and murder of a child — so heinous that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."
Then there's another crime-related issue, gun control.
That 1996 questionnaire asked whether he supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. The campaign's answer was straightforward: "Yes." Eight years later, he said on another questionnaire that "a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable" but reasonable restrictions should be imposed.
His legislative record in Illinois shows strong support for gun restrictions, such as limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but no attempts to ban them. Today, he stands by his support for controls while trying to reassure hunters that he has no interest in interfering with their access to firearms.
Obama's presidential campaign contends that voters can't learn anything about his views from the 1996 questionnaire, which was for an Illinois good-government group known as the IVI-IPO. Aides say Obama did not fill out the questionnaire and instead it was handled by a staffer who misrepresented his views on gun control, the death penalty and more.
"Barack Obama has a consistent record on the key issues facing our country," said spokesman Ben LaBolt. "Even conservative columnists have said they'd scoured Obama's record for inconsistencies and found there were virtually none."
IVI-IPO officials say it's inconceivable that Obama would have let a staffer turn in a questionnaire with incorrect answers. The group interviewed Obama in person about his answers before endorsing him in that 1996 legislative race, and he didn't suggest then, or anytime since, that the questionnaire needed to be corrected, they said.
Since he came to Washington, one piece of legislation that raises questions is the USA Patriot Act, the security measure approved after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
When he ran for the Senate, Obama called the act a "shoddy and dangerous law" that should be replaced. After he took office, the Senate considered an update that Obama criticized as only a modest improvement and one that was inferior to other alternatives.
Still, Obama ended up voting for that renewal and update of the Patriot Act.
Another disputed issue is health care.
Obama was asked in the 1996 questionnaire whether he supported a single-payer health plan, in which everyone gets health coverage through a single government program. The response was, "Yes in principle," and probably best to have the federal government set up such a program instead of the state.
Today, health care is a hot issue, and Obama does not support creating a single government program for everyone. In fact, rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards have criticized his health proposal for potentially leaving millions of people uninsured because they wouldn't be forced to buy insurance.
Political analysts don't see much danger for Obama in the changes. They aren't major shifts akin to Republican Mitt Romney's changes on abortion and gun control, so voters aren't likely to see the senator as indecisive or calculating.
"I think they allow for some adjustment," said Dante Scala, a political science professor at the University of New Hampshire. "It depends on whether they're changing the core of what they're about."
In the general election, the Republican nominee would be more likely to go after the first-term senator on another front.
"If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I don't think the Republicans will be attacking him on a particular issue," said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University. "They'd be attacking him on his experience."
Obama's Democratic opponents, concerned about turning off voters who dislike negative campaigning, haven't been aggressively using his shifts against him. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign does quietly argue that they amount to a pattern that should concern the public.
Clinton spokesman Phil Singer noted Obama's positions on handguns, health care and the Patriot Act. "Voters will ultimately decide whether these are significant shifts in his views or not," he said.
One area where Obama's campaign acknowledges his views have changed is on the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages. In January 2004, Obama said he was opposed to repealing the law. By February, one month later, he supported a repeal.
His campaign says Obama always thought the Defense of Marriage Act was a bad law but didn't believe it needed to be repealed. After hearing from gay friends how hurtful the law was, he decided it needed to be taken off the books.
It's good to see Ron Paul get a mention in some mainstream media, especially since he finishes higher than Guliani in the polls. Oh wait, nevermind........non of the mainstream media soucrces have the backbone to even TALK about a canidate who raises tons of money from PEOPLE and not CORPORATIONS!!!!! Definietly not a bias here or at any other news source. ANyone picking up my sarcasim???
VOTE RON PAUL!!!!!!!!!!
I am so proud of Obama. When everyone said it couldn't happen, he made it happen. I believe Obama represents the future of America. He is appealing to the young people, and it will take the younger generation to create change. A change in culture, in lifestyle! I think Clinton has a very twisted view of Change. She says that she is living change and has brought about change in America. I mean come on!! You did it eons ago. Americans are now leaving it!!!! It is now.. it will not be change...It is the humbleness and passion that matters and this is Obama! Look how emotional she got when she was attacked by Edwards... I think she is arrogant and it is reflecting in the polls. Clinton needs to stop acting like America owe her for her good dids in the past.
Lame Duck President equates to; A little too late for that now. Let's move on and concentrate on our future. We have a new President to elect.
We all know Rudy’s stance on books. When Ron Paul stood up to him and explained that 9/11 did not occur in a vacuum, but rather the attacks were a reaction to failed American policy, Giuliani (the mayor of New York on 9/11) was astonished. "I don't think I have ever heard that before and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th." So like any respectable debater, Paul gave Rudy a reading list, which vindicated his argument. This list including the 9/11 Commission Report and a book by the former head of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer. Unfortunately Paul doesn’t understand the mind of Rudy. The books he assigned were filled with big words, no pictures, and rational arguments – virtually assuring that the former mayor (during 9/11) would not look at them.
Given that Giuliani (who was mayor during 9/11) hasn’t dropped out of the race and apologized to the American public, one can only assume that he hasn’t been doing his reading. So I have a solution. Giuliani should see the new film, Charlie Wilson’s War. Though based on a book written for adults, the film contains few sentences, making it an apt choice for the former mayor.
The story follows Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson’s crusade to supply Afghani militants (mujahideen) in their fight against the Red Army. Almost a billion dollars of sniper rifles, bullets, machine guns, rocket launchers, antiaircraft guns, grenades, surface to air missiles, and an array of mines were given to these fanatics. The logistics and politics of Operation Cyclone is the topic of this film, adopted by Aaron Sorkin. Witty dialogue and outrageous characters make this a madcap adventure into the dark world of politics, complete with Mossad agents, strippers, and evangelicals.
While one can read about blowback and the devastating consequences of clandestine intervention, seeing the deeds done hits viscerally. It seems, as Bismarck said, that to retain our appetite for sausages and foreign policy, one ought not see them made. But this is what we want. Americans should be disgusted with the fact that we helped arm Muslim extremists – that their tax dollars were given to terrorists and murderers. What Charlie Wilson’s War does is unflinchingly expose the American people to the corruption and danger of our world-policing foreign policy.
Those familiar with Congressman Ron Paul and his philosophy of nonintervention will see Charlie Wilson as his antipode. Whereas Paul stresses staying out of the internal affairs of foreign nations, Wilson dedicates himself to the proposition that everything is the business of America. He, like Rudy Giuliani, clearly had never heard of blowback – the concept that our actions can have unforeseen implications.
In the polarized world of Wilson, there is only Good and Evil. At the time, Communist Russia was the Devil himself and had to be stopped at all costs…even if it meant sending weapons to bin Laden’s friends – the future Taliban. And while there was no explicit mention of bin Laden, there doesn’t need to be. Whether we armed bin Laden is irrelevant. The movie makes it clear that we allied ourselves with religious zealots, including Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (who is now listed as a terrorist). Even if we didn’t directly fund or train him, did we not support his cause? Were these rebels not labeled "freedom fighters"?
A powerful illustration of this flip-flopping comes when some powerful Congressman goes to the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan to chant, "God is Great" in Arabic. Imagine doing that today! And this is exactly what Ron Paul is decrying. He understands that the world is complex and changing, filled not with monoliths but nuance. He is too humble to profess to mete out perfect justice.
Eventually Wilson gets it. So does he seek to rectify the situation by eschewing future intervention? Nope. The solution is more money – this time to build schools and infrastructure. Afghanistan was to become the 51st state, for America to rule and westernize. If the medicine isn’t working, reasons Wilson, the only answer is a higher dosage
Contrast this view with that of Dr. Paul. Just as the Soviets of yesteryear were the boogeyman, today Islamofascism is. And just as some said we needed to accept totalitarianism at home to fight the Red Menace abroad, so too today do we have the neocons who sound the clarion call against the archaic notion of rights and liberty.
But Paul says we need to understand blowback. We need to understand our enemy if we ever hope to protect ourselves. Our war against the Soviets created unintended consequences. Who knows what the War on Terror will create. Unless there is a direct threat against America and the retribution is targeted and declared, all intervention must necessarily be deemed unwise and intrusive.
Far from an archaic relic, Ron Paul’s foreign policy of noninterventionism is the only viable one for the real world. Ron Paul is the only one sensible enough to understand that no council, Congress, or commander-in-chief can rule the world. How can a man like Giuliani, who reads only neoconservative tracts with titles like World War IV, be expected to understand much of anything?
Like Giuliani, Wilson snarkily demeans this philosophy when he responds that America’s inaction is a result of Congress’s "tradition." But there’s nothing wrong with a tradition of peace and obeying the Constitution. It’s the tradition Ron Paul wants to bring back.
What disturbs me the most, however, is the real Charlie Wilson. On CBS’s Sunday Morning, an interviewer asked him if had any regrets. He brazenly replied, "None. What’re you gonna regret?"
I’m not sure. Maybe it could be the arming of butchers and despots who killed thousands and paved the way to September 11th. Just a thought.
January 7, 2008
Max Raskin [send him mail] goes to high school in New Jersey. He was a summer fellow at the Mises Institute in 2007.
Vote for Barack Obama!
It would do Hillary good to support Barack as the Dems. nominee and win the white house bid for the good of the party.
The republicans are just excited and hoping to have Hillary win as she's got a long list of poor conduct starting with the spoils of watergate to her insincere influence in special interest grous & lobbyists.
Bill Clinton will only bring negative sentiments to her campaign and should avoid participating in the campiagn. Although a good man he is but his mistakes haunts both the voters and the white house.
Vote for Barack Obama and I urge all Hillary supporters to read the hidden facts and look at what wisdom can do for our country – wisdom is a gift from God!.
Vote for Barack Obama and we will have a fresh start in regaining respect, leadership and unite the divided country & world.
Vote for Barack Obama and we will see the changes that we so ever long for and we shall once again believe in the American dream – read the Obama plans in the white house and his objectives.
Barack Obama is not only a candidate for real positive change but a condidate that stands for the unspoken for and he stands for the opressed.
God bless Barack Obama and God speed the American Dream.
I vote for Barack Obama for better quality of life and security for all Americans in this world.
I vote Barack Obama for the policies he brings towards wonderful future for my family.
Barack Obama is the 'one' who will propel success for the next generation of Americans in this global economy and securing American future into the next millenium.
Barack Obama will bring unity to the United States Of America, people of all states, race and religion to be the first of his multi-ntaional states to foster peace and prosperity for the rest of the world to learn from.
Americans wants real positive change and to once again to trust an individual who can walk the talk, Barack Obama is the one individual.
People from Asia, UK and Africa are very excited about Barack Obama especially about his political experience, strenght in policies, agenda in the white house and more importantly about America a friendly leader of the world.
I was in doubt of Barack intitally and I spend an enormous time identifying the facts about each candidate – Hillary, Obama and Edwards.
Based on my own personal research and combining with 30 other researching voters who are in doubt, we together identified – Barack Obama as the next best President what America needs to meet the new challenges and set new priorites for the American people.
Vote for Barack Obama and you are voting for your children and for a better future for all Americans.
Hillary is our Choice...
Hillary will be the come back girl as we arrive at Super Tuesday. she has the experience to take us out of recession and bring our Troop home. This is no time for a rookie in the white house. The stake are too high guysssss...Let get serious...We are not playing...