Both campaigns have used tactics I'm unhappy with. When Obama acts as though he has not used negative campaign tactics, pretends that he has never accepted money from PACS and corporate influences, and acts as though he is an honest man of the people, I get incredibly frustrated.

I also get frustrated when Obama attempts to legitimize himself by delegitimizing the public policy legacy left by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Even if he, or his supporters, believe that he will be a great president, to undermine the considerable work done by a great policy team is beneath him. I understand that he is in a tooth and nail fight for what he believes is best for America. If he is such an honorable man- is above the divisiveness of politics, why doesn't he shut down the negative tactics that he and his campaign engage in on a daily basis? Because he, like Clinton, believes that there is no better way to show how effective they can be in a general election by showing how ineffective their opponent can be.

It is not a change for a rich son of people with advanced academic degrees and a whole lot of privilege to be in a position of political influence. It is also not a change for a rich political candidate to pretend to be a "man of the people". Unfortunately for the Democratic party, it is also not a change for voters to be taken in by pretty rhetoric rather than actual strength of policy.

Is it true that your MOMA has endorsed Obama?

OBAMA 08

Obama had never aggressed Hillary, he had all along the campaign remained positive, correct and gentle. He had never been negative. While the Clinton couple had engaged political campaigns that are long on sleaze and short on substance. Obama never apologized to Hillary for negative ad. How comes that because in Hillary’s own audience a sexist behavior manifested by an attendee could provoked a situation for which Barack Obama is not responsible and lead to an instantaneous retaliatory attack from the “women legion” to going after Barack Obama? The true winner at NH had in fact never been Hillary Clinton but the Republican hopeful who would ultimately emerge from the caucuses. All republican hopefuls know how divisive Sen. Clinton is in the American opinion, and how easy it would be for them to make short work of her as the democratic nominee, so are they feverishly praying God every night and every day to let them have Hillary as the democratic nominee so as to have their dream finally come true by a crashing defeat. For, they know in advance that no torrent of tears will ever save her. They all know that heir lachrymal or tear glands have dried out very long ago, as she never had emotion. The person, Marianne Pernold Young, 64, a freelance photographer from Portsmouth, N.H., whose question triggered her crocodile tears few minutes later, told ABC News that:

While she was moved by Clinton's emotional moment, she was turned off by how quickly the New York senator regained her "political posture."

"I went to see Hillary. I was undecided and I was moved by her response to me," Pernold Young said in a telephone interview with ABC News. "We saw 10 seconds of Hillary, the caring woman."
"But then when she turned away from me, I noticed that she stiffened up and took on that political posture again," she said. "And the woman that I noticed for 10 seconds was gone."

So had she found how Hillary Clinton is structurally an emotionless person, and did in disguise went straight to voted for Obama.

I am too a registered Republican (moderate Rep), but will vote for whoever I feel is best for the country. This election I am voting for Obama, but if he doesn't get the nomination, I will vote for McCain.

They are conservative Republican Catholics that live near Cleveland OH. This is not a trick, I am telling the truth. Please do not attack my parents, they might be stubborn somethings, but they are good people and honorable.

I am not the one comparing him to them, I just said why people would compare the them. He is not empty as I said, please read his plans in his some 60 page PDF on what his plan is for the country, not empty rhetoric. But you are right in one way, I am sorry Veronica, I should not have asked you if you worked for her. I mean that, I am sorry. Have a good day and may be best person win.

Also, to compare brilliant leaders like JFK and MLK to Obama is ludicrous. They were strong men of clear conviction and substance, with fresh ideas and the ability to explain how their dreams for America could be accomplished. All these attributes are missing in your man, Obama, who bases his candidacy on empty rhetoric, generalities, and hope.

Jimenez, please compare him to JFK because JFK and MLK were the last great agents of change. We have not seen this much excitement from the votes since that time. They way he makes people feel when you hear him talk, it reminds them of those two figures. This country has been in apathy since that time and many believe he can bring us out of that apathy.

experience! !

Hillary husband Bill said in 1992, (That type of experience is irrelevant)

As president, It is your supporting cast that makes a good admin. Actions surrounding your agenda.

More on Experience, Bidden and others should be in the lead, if that were the case. (Long good records)

People want Authentic Change. Not a week to week change as Hillary has done to win the campaign.

Obama empowers each American as having a role in this Movement for Change.

Same old congress promised change last year. Very little has been done.

Change requires working together with both parties. I see that more in Obama.

Early in Hillary campaign, all she would say is the republicans are out to get her.

We do not need a paranoid president,

We need change.

Although Hillary is a good candidate, she is not a beacon for authentic change. Or uniting the Democratic Party

Obama!

Now that's an Endorsement

When asked whether she would consider running for public office, Billy JeanKing said that she might if she were younger. She also formally endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, the first candidate she has endorsed for a political office.

“I think she’s earned it, more than earned it,” said King. “I’ve forgotten what a softee she really is.”

But when asked what she thought about President Bush, King gave what many might consider a surprising answer for a staunch feminist.

“I’m big on respecting the President,” said King. “He’s very black and white in his thinking. I don’t agree with him on a lot of things, but I respect him. I’ve seen him with a lot of people crying outside his office…I don’t like it when people are disrespectful to the President, because I don’t think anybody until they’re president can understand how tough it is.”
King concluded the interview by suggesting ad hoc that Stanford share its wealth and endowment with junior colleges and technical schools. She also called the audience to both go out and vote and to make a difference in the world.

“Down the road, are you going to be happy with yourself and what your journey has been?” King asked. “No matter what age you are or shape you’re in, you do make a difference, if only to yourself.”

They arent actually 'endorsing' him, just commenting on his campaign.

They key in on the fact Obama has the youth vote. Obama in (somewhat) new so he has no enemies........

Wait until he goes up against a Republican candidate. Their tune will change REAL fast.

Its interesting to notice Democrats arent rushing to endorse a Republican. They should endorse the Rebublican who wont stand up in a general election.

Fred Thompson.

"...right now Barack is CLEARLY running a more respectable, refreshing and honest campaign." Robert A. Hunter Jr.

********************************************

Yes We Do Yes We Do Yes We Do = AND we can all start by asking obama to stop stealing César Chávez's rallying cry "Si se puede!!" in his attempt to woo the Latino voters. It's really insulting to the Hispanic-American community.

refreshing and honest NOT

and maybe the reason he lost in NH was that he stole senator mccain's "straight talk" slogan there too...

can't wait to see who will be the shiny bright new keynote speaker for the 2008 democratic convention – so we all know who we are going to have running in the 2012 elections.

The DLC has weighed the odds–and is hinging bets on Obama for the General Election.

But in states where only Democrats can vote in the Primaries–John Edwards is swinging a strong majority from what I've seen.

This is bad judgement. The DEM leaders want to "hold on" to the big money rolling into the party from the liberal, social focused, healthcare, and legal special interest groups. They are rolling in money!!!

John Edwards–is sure to end the "pay day" from the big rollers and he has the entire party leadership shivering in their boots.

His grassroots success–and coming in 2nd ins Iowa against Hillary–has the entire DLC working at odds towards ending his flame...in hopes of Obama and Clinton maintaining the "staus qou" with the big special interest money.

They don't want change.

As President–John Edwards is the only candidate–that can not only make the White House fall in line with a "new way of doing business"–as the de facto leader of the DEM Party as President–he can push for some meaningful change there too!! And they are scared.

Don't be mislead. If you're a centrist–who would like to see some real change in Washington and not lip service–vote Edwards.

Obama making people people that would not usually vote for a Democrat to want to vote for one because they believe he can change this country.

My parents mostly always vote for Republicans and they actually told me that their vote will go to Obama because they feel politics can finally change. They are conservative and don't agree with all his views but they believe in him. They have felt like the Republicans and the Democrats just fight and no nothing, but they actually have hope AND believe Obama will help end that since they have since his experience to do so (meaning many bills together with John McCain and other Republicans)

Veronica and the other Hillary supporters, do you want to turn off voters like my parents? They are willing to go over their party lines for change, Obama has this power on people not seen since JFK.

Ms. Clinton / Bill Clinton will never able to bring this country together. Mr. Obama can. I'm willing to cross political lines to work with him on this change. I guess in itself, my willingness to vote and work with him represents a change...Maybe this is the true definition of the change that we are talking about. It's a big change: the change that we need. Look folks we need to work together...this is not a game. This is about the future of our nation. I am not willing to give up on hope. Hope is the engine that drives the American experience, the American dream.

Obama is electable; Hillary is not.

We found that out with Ned Lamont running against Joe Lieberman. Lamont, bless his heart, could not capture independents. And the Republicans voted for Lieberman over the Republican nominee.

50% of the country will not vote for Hillary. That leaves about 44-47% for Hillary and the rest for Bloomburg or someone else. You better think twice before you enter the voting booth.

I won't be voting in the coming elections but all the yakking tires me... What this country needs is someone who can unite it! We'll be in even deeper mess if after this election we have a polarizing President who is incapable of working with his/her opposition...Bill Clintons charm afforded him some successes in this area...Hillary has NONE!

She is the best thing to energize the republican base
She all the times talks of right wing left wing, a thing that divides that unites
She's such a persona changing person that you dont know who she'll be next
She doesnt connect with voters
She is a very good person but the truth is she hasnt got that americans are tired of hardball politics , people want a break from politics as usual, they want something real.