Countdown NH: Before debate, candidates alter messages

I agree with Hillary Clinton that Obama is inexperienced and there is a concern there. My obversations of Obama: I had started supporting Obama in 2004! in Texas, and did alot to talk him up here and at the University of Texas. I had photographed him 3 times in close quarters. I had made contributions to him the first 2 quarters of this year. I was not the only one who put in ALOT of work to help him. Has his campaign found ways to get us involved or showed appreciation for our efforts? NO! His support in Austin has eroded in large areas, and his last rally here was MUCH smaller than the large Feb. 07 rally. His only contact with those of us, like myself who wanted to support him - has been "give me money" email and "hey come out to my rally!" email.

I agree with Hillary Clinton that Obama is inexperienced and there is a concern there.

My obversations of Obama: I had started supporting Obama in 2004! in Texas, and did alot to talk him up here and at the University of Texas. I had photographed him 3 times in close quarters, and talked to him directly for a few minutes at one. I had made contributions to him the first 2 quarters of 2007. I was not the only one who put in ALOT of work to help him. Has his campaign found ways to get us involved or showed appreciation for our efforts? NO! His support in Austin has eroded in large areas, and his last rally here was MUCH smaller than the large Feb. 07 rally, that drew 20,000 people. His only contact with those of us, like myself who wanted to support him - has been "give me money" email and "hey come out to my rally!" email.

When I tried to give my concerns to the Obama people repeatedly!! by email and by phone, it was largely disregarded. When my concerns to a phone solicitor hit home at the time, and she gave me the national phone number, that national person's attitude was "hey there are too many people for us to follow up with" and we are focusing on the first 3 states. There was a strong arrogance with the person, as if Obama knows all and doesn't need any input on things from anyone. Is this giving a voice to those who are not lobbyists? Granted, the top person can't hear from everyone (despite Obama's rhetoric), but most campaigns understand that you need levels of leadership in a campaign to fully engage people nationally. This same mechanism is also required as President - since you need more than a podium and TV to truly engage people. While Obama gives lip service to this notion, his action and follow through are horribly lacking afterwards. Obama's is so restricted at the national level, they don't even engage voluntary groups like "Texans for Obama" - despite their efforts to help him.

There is a local young candidate here for city council who was like that, great initial candidate with charm and apparent charisma - but after winning he was largely dismissive of those that supported him. That city councilman has turned out to be one of the worst office holders in Austin. He tried to be friend to everyone, and he has come out to be friend to no one. Why? Inexperience! While Obama wants to have everyone have a voice equal to lobbyists and insiders, he is achieving this by excluding most everyone from input. While he has courted Iowa, NH, and SC closely, do not be mistaken - after you vote you won't hear or have any way to contact or be involved in his campaign, in my opinion - other than repeated "give me money" emails.

Having met all the top D candidates and also McCain on the R side, the two candidates that I think are the most personable when they are not wanting something from you are - Hillary and McCain. I was within the Secret Service bubble with Hillary for 3 hours and she was incredibly gracious and willing to listen to anyone. Obama was a rock star (in a negative way) in a similar position, and pretty much gives a smile, great giving speeches, but far LESS effective one-on-one than Hillary.

McCain also was willing to talk to people honestly, and I think also is someone that has incredible experience - and is not a gamble. I saw McCain get hit with a tough, emotional question from an audience member about health care, and he intently listened, and then gave his answer starting with, "you probably won't like my answer, but here it is ..." While I don't agree with McCain on all issues, he is genuine and capable. For those independents who do not like Hillary, I might suggest strongly giving a second look to McCain.

As an independent moderate, I hope my insight from Texas can help you all in NH better judge these candidates from a different perspective - the back side of their campaigns (the side you all don't see!).

Take care.

As a moderate my concern is THE HAVING experience in Washington. This is not always a good thing as we have seen during this past term. I am ready for someone that is not inhibited by power and connections with influential 'partners'.
There is an optimal amount of 'experience' that seems to actually amount to getting things done for this country and not for special interests.

What we have isn't working so it is time to try an 'outsider'. Change is good as we see our country struggling on so many fronts -national and international.

We are all individuals so why vote as others tell us - voting party lines is a bad idea from the past.
Thanks

Change is a bit of a silly 'catch word' at the moment, as unless Jeb Bush runs for President EVERYONE will be a change. If anyone takes the time to READ the platforms you will see that Hillary is the only candidate who will actually change the status quo because she is the only one who has a PLAN for change and has thought out the problems and will be able to hit the ground running. Obama is a beautiful speaker but has no substance. I want someone with experience who will be effective to bring our country back. Watch the debates Hillary will be the one who understands the questions and has the answers.

Barak Obama deserves the heartiest congratulations for a hard fought and clean victory in Iowa.

But the best candidate for the Democrats in 08 is Hillary Clinton.

Her personal story remains untold. As a wife and attorney, she provided the emotional and financial support Bill needed to establish himself as the dominant figure in Democratic politics.

In mid-life she experienced a searingly humiliating experience. An experience caused entirely by her husband's misconduct. She was not overcome by it.

Instead, she forgave Bill and set out to establish her independence.

She entered politics and won two high level elections in the most politically competitive environment in the country.

Her victories are based on a record of accomplishment and caring.

Hillary Clinton has proven she can translate the yearning for change into the policy that will transform the yearning into progress.

James --

You repeated twice that Obama isn't experienced, but you never elaborated -- and this seemed to be the thesis of your comment. Instead of giving us support for your assertion, you instead sent us on some sort of red herring, telling us who has, basically, given you the most personal attention. Your comments reminded me of the tone and tenor of those people who voted for W, those who voted for the guy because they felt they could sit down and have a beer with him. I'm sure you probably didn't mean to sound this way, so I'm asking for you to support your original assertion. And I'm also asking you to consider the fact that "experience" right now might actually be a negative quality -- at least for a lot of voters. Because we have to ask, "experience" in what? In spinning an agenda? In a pre-9/11 landscape? In a broken system of government? In a liberal elite bubble?

I get the impression you are telling people not to vote for Obama because he hasn’t given you and your state the attention you need. I guess I’m just asking, What is it that you want? You want more than a mailer -- Has Clinton given your more than a mailer as we’ve come into Iowa/NH? What other candidates have given you and your state that personal attention that you seek? I want to know – I’ve got a vote to make in ’08.

But I would like to say that I have a friend that had a personal 1 hour bus ride with Obama this last year – and she asked a lot of questions – and he asked a lot of questions, and he did much more than smile and give a canned answer. Most importantly, he listened to her questions and statements, and she found him incredibly human and incredibly bright. But even with that said, I don’t think we can judge a candidate by just these moments.

For me, I’ve judged Obama on what he seems capable of doing in this country. To me, the democratic party is about progressive values built by a diversity of voices. I’ve been to his meetings, and he brings hundreds, thousands of people together from vastly different backgrounds. He seems to be able to stand as a voice for many different types of people. When I went to the Iowa caucus on Thursday, supporters for other candidates who are good democrats, were convinced to join Obama because they saw the diversity of faces who came out to stand for him. Additionally, I supported him because he – unlike Clinton or Edwards – did not support this war at all, even when it was unpopular to do so. I can’t support candidates who are political chameleons, who change with the popularity of the issue.

The one area where I’m not happy with Obama – his healthcare plan – it isn’t as comprehensive as I’d like. I like Edward’s plan better. But I don’t like the fact that Edward’s claims to pull the troops out of Iraq immediately. Obama seems to – in all areas – be more cautious, more methodical, thoughtful.

And, again, I end with this – if he can seem to bring America – as fractured as it is – together – imagine what he could do to change the face of America around the world?

Your headline begs a question: There is still ONE candidate who isn't altering his message: That would be Dr. Ron Paul.

At least he will be in tonight's debate, though you seem not to have mentioned him here.

We're of course ignoring FOX News - read: "FOX News Sunday: 'We Distort. You Deride.'" here:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article872.html

Your headline begs a question: There is still ONE candidate who isn't altering his message: That would be Dr. Ron Paul.

At least he will be in tonight's debate, though you seem not to have mentioned him here.

We're of course ignoring FOX News - read: "FOX News Sunday: 'We Distort. You Deride.'" here:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article872.html

I am a history and government teacher and I tell my students, "Anyone who thinks that a pat on the back is needed to participate in a campaign and/or your democracy, then you're living in the wrong country!"

Being part of a campaign is like being part of a team. You work hard, you do what's asked and you win the game. Being part of a democracy means that you act for the "greater good."

I think some people need to be reminded of JFK's famous words, "Ask not what my country can do for you..."

The goal here is not to gain personally, but to help those who are in desparate need for America to change course and take on these huge problems made bigger by 7 years of BushCO. If you think Obama can do that (as I do) vote for him, campaign for him, do whatever it takes to get him elected.

Experience aside, I believe it is intellect, integrity, jungement and leadership that is desparately needed in the White House and Obama fits that bill.

If you think it's Hillary, vote for her, but don't expect an golden handshake for your efforts no matter who you chose. It is selfish and counter productive to the needs of our country/world. Time to grow up!

This is pretty amazing, but true. In any event, Dr. Paul is winning the internet vote and that is saying something...

Google Trends- Ron Paul Winning the Race!

Click Here to see Google Trend article

James is an interesting case of what I call "wanting to own a piece of history." The fact is that a lot of people noticed Obama had what it takes to be President a long time ago, and that is why the New York Times ran his story in 1988. That is why, at a dinner in 1998 with Chicago Law Review students, they were adamant that he would soon be their Senator. That is why people have been saving every scrap of Obama paper they come across since 2003. A lot of people contribute to helping a candidate get his message out there, and James may have helped (thank you). But he isn't owed anything except the satisfaction that he helped the nation choose the right guy. If you run into a politician who promises to give you a job directing FEMA because you were a past contributor, you probably aren't backing the right guy.

We have, more than once, sent a person to the White House as president, and have always, without exception, paid dearly for it. Jimmy Carter is one major example. While no one will deny that President Carter is a Christian and honorable man, his dismal showing as an inexperienced Chief Executive cost our country mightily. George W. Bush, our present president, is not only a major example of a person elected on charisma, but so terribly inexperienced that our country has suffered trauma under his two-term presidency that we may never recover because of it.

The above does not, by any means, prove that these men are not good men, but they should never have been made to believe they were up to the job. Please, for God's sake, and our very own, think twice before electing Barak Obama president. He just simply is not ready; Hillary Clinton is.

PLEASE FOLKS, tell me exactly why Hillary is qualified to be president. Being a patent lawyer in Arkansas her whole career isn't a qualification. Being First Lady isn't a qualification. Being junior senator, in and of itself, unless you have an outstanding record of accomplishments as senator (which Hillary does NOT) also isn't. And having a record of one scandel after another, CERTAINLY isn't.

AND, I'm sick of hearing UNINFORMED people say that Obama doesn't have the qualifications to be president. His excellent resume is as long as my arm, but here are a few highlights... * Graduated Harvard Law School in top 1%. Majored in Constitutional Law. * Editor of well respected publication in NY on International Trade and Finance. * Worked for years as Civil Rights Attorney. * Worked as Community Political Organizer for years in Chicago's poor areas. * Served as State Senator of Illinois for 8 years. * Served for last 3 years as U.S. Senator of Illinois. HAS 6 YEARS MORE THAN HILLARY IN ELECTED OFFICE.

Most of all, Obama is a self made man. The accomplishments I've cited are his own and NOT HIS SPOUSE'S !!

PLEASE FOLKS, tell me exactly why Hillary is qualified to be president. Being a patent lawyer in Arkansas her whole career isn't a qualification. Being First Lady isn't a qualification. Being junior senator, in and of itself, unless you have an outstanding record of accomplishments as senator (which Hillary does NOT) also isn't. And having a record of one scandel after another, CERTAINLY isn't.

AND, I'm sick of hearing UNINFORMED people say that Obama doesn't have the qualifications to be president. His excellent resume is as long as my arm, but here are a few highlights... * Graduated Harvard Law School in top 1%. Majored in Constitutional Law. * Editor of well respected publication in NY on International Trade and Finance. * Worked for years as Civil Rights Attorney. * Worked as Community Political Organizer for years in Chicago's poor areas. * Served as State Senator of Illinois for 8 years. * Served for last 3 years as U.S. Senator of Illinois. HAS 6 YEARS MORE THAN HILLARY IN ELECTED OFFICE.

Most of all, Obama is a self made man. The accomplishments I've cited are his own and NOT HIS SPOUSE'S !!

Hillary claims experience, especially her experience as First Lady of our nation and First Lady of Arkansas. Isn't this the same experience that Laura Bush or even Nancy Reagan could claim? In addition, if we want to rely on "experience" as our determinor, let's add up the combined experience of our Congressional Branch and Presidential Branch of our government. Where did all that "experience" get us...into a war...attacked within our own borders. What we need is wisdom, Obama's wisdom.

I am a US citizen that had the privilege to experience living abroad for at least half of my life (I am 32). One of those countries was Argentina. For those who don't know, Argentina entered into a MAJOR CRISIS in 2002. Its president at the time was Fernando De La Rua. Why people voted for him? Because of his long-time experience in government. He had so much experience that when he finally got a chance, he burnt out while in office; he had run out of gas. Plus, he had so many conditional friends and allies with special interests that literally placed him in power that he was no longer free of making decisions on behalf of the people. Experience had come at the expense of strenght, vitality and freedom. So be cautious when we make experience a priority. Learn from others' mistakes. The set of skills and qualities needed yesterday might not be relevant today. In today's world, too much experience can be counterproductive. In today's world, facing today's challenges, we need a president WHO CAN BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER, nationally and internationally. UNITY. We need a connector, an integrator, a liasion, an inspiring leader that when he/she talks it moves you to do greater things. Because the real CHANGE can be ignited by an official but ultimately has to be done through and by us people. Light a candle and pray your God to let you see clear who is the best equipped for the job. God bless America!

I am tired of hearing lower taxes, healthcare, and benefits for the "Middle Class." No candiate wants to define "Middle Class" because it will show that the middle class is not what most people think. It will show that the middle class is low-income wage earners so that the candidates can claim they are giving benefits to most of America when they are really giving promises to benefits that very few will be able to take advantage of and cost the government very little in relation to higher taxes collected from those above the middle class, which is most of America.

Hillary and those shady Clintons should just drop out of the race. Now she is the "candidate for young people?" Bill and Hillary, you had your chance. It is time for a new era of REAL leadership in this country that isn't tied into the Washington establishment, corrupt bi-partisan environment. Hillary got all her campaign money from the big corporations in the pharma, defense and insurance industries - who do you think she'll fight for once she gets in.

Obama's victory speech was very inspriing. Nice win Obama. You and Edwards would make a great team for the next 8 years. They remind me of our Bobby and MLK. Keep up the fight Obama and John!!! We need leaders who serve all the people and not the corporations, rich and military industrial complex.

Obama is the man....We are about change. Out with the old Hillary, give it up girl. We need leadership in this country who is willing to grow and keep growing. Hillary is grown and you can't tell her anything....she is a "miss know it all." Whereas Hillary has knowledge, Obama has wisdom.

Ron Paul made more sense than any other canditate.

James what are you thinking? Obama doesn't owe you a thing, it's great you've helped, but get a grip. Do it for the country. And look at the number of pararaphs you wasted on your "me, me, me" point. Yowzas.