Polls differ on whether Clinton or Obama ahead

The Rasmussen poll is the only relevant one. It is the most recent one.

The Zogby Poll only includes 20% of participants before the Iowa Causus. Zogby stated that Obama would see a 15% increase as a result and we should see the new Zogby tomorrow.

A significant number of the responds of the Zogby poll were taken prior to the Iowa results, Rasmussen is the first pure poll after the Iowa Caucus.

Neither of these polls are taken very seriously by polling professionals.

Both use "auto dialers" and a computer voice asks whomever answers the phone various questions.

A 5-year old kid could answer the phone!

Both Ramussen and Zogby were wildly wrong in Iowa.

Also, highly suspect, is the Channel 7/Suffolk poll which is frequently wrong.

Neither of these polls are taken very seriously by polling professionals.

Both use "auto dialers" and a computer voice asks whomever answers the phone various questions.

A 5-year old kid could answer the phone!

Both Ramussen and Zogby were wildly wrong in Iowa.

Also, highly suspect, is the Channel 7/Suffolk poll which is frequently wrong.

Neither of these polls are taken very seriously by polling professionals.

Both use "auto dialers" and a computer voice asks whomever answers the phone various questions.

A 5-year old kid could answer the phone!

Both Ramussen and Zogby were wildly wrong in Iowa.

Also, highly suspect, is the Channel 7/Suffolk poll which is frequently wrong.

Neither of these polls are taken very seriously by polling professionals.

Both use "auto dialers" and a computer voice asks whomever answers the phone various questions.

A 5-year old kid could answer the phone!

Both Ramussen and Zogby were wildly wrong in Iowa.

Also, highly suspect, is the Channel 7/Suffolk poll which is frequently wrong.

Jeeze, Bob, we GET IT. No need to post the same thing 4 times.

I wish boston.com and other media outlets would quit treating their audiences like boobs when it comes to this polling data. The first three items should have been known and reported by Foon Rhee.

If Bob wanted to do something other than dump haterade on the discussion, perhaps he should point us to some reliable polling data.

Interesting that Paul has apparently lost ground to huckabee post Iowa. know Iknow

We had all better HOPE That the polls showing Clinton ahead are the RIGHT one!
Can we really afford to have a FRESH..aka NEW/NO EXPERIENCE person in the White House AGAIN??? We are trying to recover from the last EIGHT long years of those having NO CLUE...I as an American DO NOT want to suffer and I mean suffer through his LEARNING process! The Clintons ARE PROVEN leaders, and with their knowledge of economy, health care, foreign policy, AND the familiarity they BOTH have with leaders around the world, we can do nothing but BETTER!! Obama is cute, witty, but when push comes to shove cute and witty will not get it when Decisions require WISDOM and Experience! Hillary all the way!!!! Maryland Voter.

Thanks, Bob. Useful comment, but not so useful it needed to be posted four times. Spammer.

Anyone at the Globe, could you pare back those four comments to just one?

I am puzzled by "Bob's" three identical posting in which he states Zogby was wrong in Iowa. I happen to subscribe to Zogby's tracking polls because of their record of accuracy. He hit both the Democratic and Repbulican races perfectly in Iowa. Thus, I don't know what "Bob" means about Zogby being unreliable. I presume he means that he doesn't like Zogby's findings.

I would note additionally that Zogby's results are a rolling poll. Thus, we will not have a full post-Iowa sample for a few more days. I suspect, however, that this sample will make "Bob" even more unhappy.

After 8 longs years of an incompetent George Bush, I don't wish to bet the house on someone two years out of the Illinois state senate. Someone, who for all his talk about a new direction, did CYA and voted present on over 100 occasions.

That's his track record. Gives a good speech but when it came to doing the walk he took a hike on over 100 occasions.

Hillary Clinton is a proven winner.

Let's hope that the Communist Clintion is finally being figured out. Only the Commie newpapers love her!

Bill Clinton and Kennedy were told also that they had no experience but they are today greatest presidents of our time. Hillary has no experience in New York but she was elected. Obama is a man. Power to the people. We love him because he represent his value and honesty. GO OBAMA GO, The youth of America are behind you because you are an inspiration to us. WE TRUST AND BELIEVE IN YOU. Hillary is a player...a chameleon, you can't just trust her. Hillary is not Bill

Yes, we should HOPE and PRAY that the WISDOM and EXPERIENCE of Hillary Clinton will win, in spite of the media's negative portrayal of her. Why doesn't anyone comment on the obvious sexism in the criticism of her "logic" and lack of "emotion." You can bet that if she showed too much emotion, she would be attacked for not being rational and serious enough to be commander-in-chief.

Yes, we should HOPE and PRAY that the WISDOM and EXPERIENCE of Hillary Clinton will win, in spite of the media's negative portrayal of her. Why doesn't anyone comment on the obvious sexism in the criticism of her "logic" and lack of "emotion." You can bet that if she showed too much emotion, she would be attacked for not being rational and serious enough to be commander-in-chief.

Quite Amazing! You can mention Ron Paul, but only as a footnote to Huckabee? You report the percentage of every other candidate that you mention, but now that RON PAUL is registering 14% (as in, DOUBLE DIGITS FOURTEEN PERCENT!) on Rasmussen, somehow he is the one exception in your report?

With this kind of Political "Intelligence" coming from the news media, it's no wonder Americans are seeking and making their own news sources!

Another example is FOX ("Faux") "News"... read:

FOX News Sunday: "We Distort. You Deride." here:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article872.html

We need honor in the OFFICE

NH is very patriotic. Romney who promotes his "tough" Reagan defense strategy says he will increase the all volunteer army by 100,000. The elephant in the room is Romney avoided service, his five boys did not serve, and the only way to increase the military numbers is to rally the young with honor and not "DO AS I SAY...NOT AS I DO" Mitt go back to exploiting America... you and your kids' politics is not honoring her like you already suggested

hopefully tonight's debate will help show what a much more qualified, progressive and sincere choice Bill Richardson is

I think the reality is that it's pretty much even in New Hampshire, though that probably bodes well for Obama. He only has to win by 1 percentage point to be able to claim a huge victory.

All these polls will be El Wrongo for Juan McCainesty.

Zogby and Rasmussen include Independents. And McCainesty gets much of his support from non-Republicans. But when the rubber meets the road come Tuesday, many of these liberal independents will vote their white guilt away and choose a Dem ballot for Barrack Hussein Obama.

The Straight Jacket Express will be out of gas!

It is clear that Sen Clinton is using the sames devices as our current president. It is amazing to watch her align herself with the same strategy as the one she disagrees with so strongly. She is using the politics of fear against Sen Obama. You have no worries about the skill level of Sen Obama. Remember he is a United States Senator at the young age of 46, HE IS EXTREMELY CAPABLE!!!! Do not fall into the trap of being afraid. Have the courage to look deep into Sen Obama's eyes when he talks, look deep into yourself when he speaks and finally believe that we are worth having a president that is a uniter not a divider. Listen to Sen Clinton, she is in the process of dividing our country. Do not forget that she has the highest rate of dislike amongst the voting population. Do not forget that she voted for the war in iraq and she voted to label iran a terrorist group. She is yesterdays news and in her mind all she has left is to attack Sen Obama and divide even her own party and leave them vulnerable to losing against the republican candidate.

Either Obama or Edwards are fine by me. Those of you are Hillary fans don't have a clue. She is so calculated it makes me want to puke in my mouth. Both Obama and Edward if elected could bring in cabinets with some very polished dems with years of experience. Such as Biden Sec of State, Wes Clark, Sec of Defense, etc WAKE UP... Hillary is bought and paid for plus she made ZERO policy decisions as first lady...

Hillary is a phony. Obama has momentum. Huckabee was in his zone with the evangelicals in Iowa. Mcain will probably win NH. Romney will win the nomination and presidency.

Hillary is a phony. Obama has momentum. Huckabee was in his zone with the evangelicals in Iowa. Mcain will probably win NH. Romney will win the nomination and presidency.

Bill Clinton says that Hillary is a problem solver. Well she got a problem now. The more people know about her, the less they like her.

I bet her numbers will drop after the debate tonight.

In Iowa, HRC don't take questions and Iowa still gives her 29 points. She is taking questions now. Folks will see more of her true colors and she is in for a walloping.

I'll be curious as to the Democratic vs Republican turn-out and the demographics. And if Senator Clinton doesn't carry the female vote and loses, she's toast. Even if she still has the machine and money to forward, the black female vote she was counting on in South Carolina will shift to Senator Obama.

I want to thank everyone for their comments, it is what being an American is all about. I am a 39 year old black male from the Chicago area trying to get every bit of info on the feel of the people of New England. What i hear is inspiring and brings me to tears. For so long I have not liked being an American and have made many trips abroad looking for a new home. What happened in Iowa has given me hope again. Please New England make me feel proud to be an American once again. OBAMA 08.

I want to thank everyone for their comments, it is what being an American is all about. I am a 39 year old black male from the Chicago area trying to get every bit of info on the feel of the people of New England. What i hear is inspiring and brings me to tears. For so long I have not liked being an American and have made many trips abroad looking for a new home. What happened in Iowa has given me hope again. Please New England make me feel proud to be an American once again. OBAMA 08.

I admit to finding myself confounded by the notion that Hilary Clinton has experience. She is a 2nd term Senator. The notion that being married to a former President gives her experience at being President is a shaky one. What if we applied the same standard to appointing Supreme Court Judges, "Well Senator, I myself have only sat on the bench in small claims, but I've heard my wife talk about her cases on the Supreme Court for years now." Add to this, the fact that the one time H.Clinton was allowed to carry the ball on a major policy drive, health care, the results were disastrous with political fallout that lasted for years. If Clinton wants to convince me she has experience, I want to hear more about her record in the Senate (such as a credible reason why she voted in favor of Iraq rather than arguing that it would lead to more diplomacy) and have her stop positioning herself as a way to bypass the 22nd Amendment. Experience is all well and good but I myself would rather pick a candidate on evidence of good judgement. Obama and Edwards say what they think, Clinton says what she thinks we want to hear

The second Bush was a lot worse than the first one, can we really afford to see if the second Clinton follows that same trend? We already know she is a flat personality as a politician. And that she voted for the Iraq war, wasting hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money just because she didn't want to look week. And it seems that isn't a problem that she won't tax Americans more in a vain attempt to solve.

Either she is a big idea true believer that is going to be writing checks that overworked overtaxed Americans can't pay for, or she is trying to win the presidency purely out of vanity and will just be another caretaker president. Either way, Clinton should not be president because the government has real problems that need to be dealt with humbly, not with the arrogance she has shown.

I just hope that the good people of New Hamshire realize that Senator
Clinton is our only chance to bring this nation out of recession.
If they choose Obama,that is as good as putting another Republican
in the White House for another four years.Make no mistake about it,the
Republicans will eat this black muslem alive.
We as a nation can't afford to put a person in the White House just because
he was invited to a steak fry in Iowa.
The Supreme Court made the mistake for us in 2000,let us not make a worst
mistake by putting someone in the white house with no experience

The Democratic Debates. Wow!!!

I hope all of America noticed Hillary Clinton was the only person (Democratic and Republican) who brought up the possible recession America is about to face.

The graphs displayed after the debate showed the economy was the number one area America wished the debate had covered more.

Obama keeps saying he is going to listen to Americas and bring the people into government, so why wasn't he the first to mention this fact? Hasn't he heard this during his campaigning?

Obviously, she is a candidate concerned with issues facing the American people.

I think Hillary is the smartest most capable person running for the election. Normally, when she is asked a question during a debate her answers list specific things she will do to resolve the issue (1,2, and 3). She is obviously well informed and prepared to lead and deal with the current and future problems in America!!!

As far as her record and 35 years of experience, America check her record, as she keeps stating in the debates. During the debate I'm sure she doesn't have enough time to state all of your life long accomplishments.

Good luck to you Hillary!!!!

Despite attempts by others to drag the debate down, time and time again, Barack Obama took the discussion back to the high road. And contrary to Ms. Bowers notion above, Sen. Clinton is only specific when she's reciting one of her pat answers. Ask her a question she doesn't want to answer (and there were several tonight) and get ready for some spin.

We've just concluded weeks of intensive up-close scrutiny of the candidates out here in Iowa and I can tell you it came down to credibility. Obama has it; Clinton does not. I'm pretty sure the NH voters will see it too.

The Clintons are reeling from the beating they took in Iowa. It is obvious in the thinly veiled viciousness now laden in the attacks on Obama. They do not know how to make HIllary more appealing to voters so they must attempt to drag the other contenders down to her level.

The Clinton campaign has jumped the shark. "OBAMA IN '08!"

I have yet to make up my mind about who to vote for, although I am 100% sure I'll vote in the Democratic primary. I happen to think that the Democratic field is the strongest in years. I think all the Dems held their own in the debate, despite their fatigue. However, I admit to being more than a little annoyed when a male commentator called Hillary Clinton's genuine and justifiable moment of anger a low point for her, while John Edward's anger -- present througout much of the debate -- was deemed "passionate" and "on message." A double standard?

I was impressed by the intelligence and lively debating among the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans. Four viable candidates who can think on their feet. I was inspired by Edwards' commitment to changing the big money control of so much of our government and his willingness to name the industries that are causing so many hardships for average Americans who have to work harder every year to almost reach the lifestyle they had the previous year.

While people accuse Hillary Clinton of being an operator, that is one of the most necessary characteristics of an effective president. Her undeniable savvy, real experience in presidential politics, make her the only candidate who could walk right into the job and make things happen. While I don't always think she's completely candid, I have a sense that she would make good decisions and know how to move things ahead. It would be hard to make a different choice in the voting booth.

Goerge W was a true leader and HERO in the Churchillian sense after 9/11. He saved us by his bold leadership and with the threat diminished the Clinton hit team attacks him. Monica who? Right wing conspiracy? I did not? Go McCain!!Al Quaed aint dead yet!

Hillary did great in the debate, and I will now vote for her in the primary. She knew the signiificant issues the best and made Obama look ill-prepared to be president.

Hillary Clinton is the candidate who can navigate our nation towards economic stability, safety from terrorists, a secure social security, and affordable healthcare. And as a woman president Clinton would be a great role model for women and girls of every ethnicity, race, and religion. I feel calm and safe when I envision President Hillary Clinton leading our great country.

January 5, 2008, 11:39 pm
New Hampshire and Those Labor Ads
By Kate Phillips

MANCHESTER, N.H. — As we’ve been driving around New Hampshire this week, we can’t help but hear the radio ads playing repeatedly. We’ve heard Ron Paul ads, John McCain ads and then ads that just stopped us — those for Hillary Rodham Clinton and against Senator Barack Obama.
We had to listen hard (and not veer off the road) to hear AFSCME as the sponsor at the end of one of the messages. And while we’ve been paying attention tonight to the debates, Mark Halperin’s item over at The Page caught our eye, and we thought we should share it with you.

As Mr. Halperin reported, several members of the International Executive Board protested loudly in a letter to AFSCME president Gerald McEntee that an independent expenditure unit run by two people had been using funds solely to attack Senator Obama (and no other Democratic candidate). Keep reading this letter, posted on The Page, and keep in mind that it comes at a time when Senator Obama has emerged victorious out of Iowa and is in a very tight race here in New Hampshire.
We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.
In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of the other candidates or that she would be the better president for working families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the most likely primary victor, and the strongest general election candidate.
……
We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through “independent expenditures”–is squandering precious resources to wage a costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack’s standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the explicit purpose of “opposing Barack Obama.”
It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Senator Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even when they can’t afford it. The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama’s health care plan will exclude 15 million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a “black eye” among many in the media and the progressive community.
Earlier this week, The Concord Monitor reported that voters had received emails criticizing Mr. Obama’s health care plan as “a Band-aid solution” that would leave “15 million Americans uninsured.” (We are pretty sure Mrs. Clinton has used the same term — Band-aid solution — to refer to plans that weren’t hers.) These mails included comments by John Edwards that criticized the Obama plan, The Monitor said, which residents could have inferred meant they were backed by Mr. Edwards and his supporters.
But, no, they were financed by an AFCSCME committee. The Monitor reported that AFSCME had spent nearly $80,000 on such mailings recently. And it had paid for radio ads, as we mentioned earlier.
The issue of primary endorsements has been loudly debated among labor unions. And in fact, some unions or their umbrella organizations decided not to endorse in the primaries — sometimes citing the fact that the field was fairly strong. Others, remembering how they were stung by supporting a candidate who lost in previous cycles, were still skittish this time around.
If you read the entire letter by members of the board, you can sense their concerns about such a scenario. It’s pretty palpable.

January 5, 2008, 11:39 pm
New Hampshire and Those Labor Ads
By Kate Phillips

MANCHESTER, N.H. — As we’ve been driving around New Hampshire this week, we can’t help but hear the radio ads playing repeatedly. We’ve heard Ron Paul ads, John McCain ads and then ads that just stopped us — those for Hillary Rodham Clinton and against Senator Barack Obama.
We had to listen hard (and not veer off the road) to hear AFSCME as the sponsor at the end of one of the messages. And while we’ve been paying attention tonight to the debates, Mark Halperin’s item over at The Page caught our eye, and we thought we should share it with you.

As Mr. Halperin reported, several members of the International Executive Board protested loudly in a letter to AFSCME president Gerald McEntee that an independent expenditure unit run by two people had been using funds solely to attack Senator Obama (and no other Democratic candidate). Keep reading this letter, posted on The Page, and keep in mind that it comes at a time when Senator Obama has emerged victorious out of Iowa and is in a very tight race here in New Hampshire.
We are writing to protest in the strongest terms the negative campaign that AFSCME is conducting against Barack Obama. We do not believe that such a wholesale assault on one of the great friends of our union was ever contemplated when the International Executive Board (IEB) made its decision to endorse Hillary Clinton.
In fact, when the vote to make a primary endorsement was taken by the IEB, there appeared to be widespread agreement that we had a strong field of Democratic candidates all of whom had made a very positive impression on the IEB Screening Committee. The argument for endorsing Hillary Clinton was not that her positions were better than those of the other candidates or that she would be the better president for working families, but rather that she was the clear frontrunner, the most likely primary victor, and the strongest general election candidate.
……
We were therefore shocked and appalled to learn that our union-through “independent expenditures”–is squandering precious resources to wage a costly and deceptive campaign to oppose Barack Obama. As Barack’s standing in the polls has soared, according to numerous press reports AFSCME has spent untold dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire to send out mailings and run radio ads whose sole purpose is to undercut his candidacy. And now AFSCME has even registered a website with the explicit purpose of “opposing Barack Obama.”
It is also worth noting that the campaign that AFSCME is waging against Senator Obama is fundamentally dishonest and inconsistent with past positions of our union, i.e. attacking him for not forcing individuals to purchase health care even when they can’t afford it. The ads are misleading in attempting to give the impression that they are associated with John Edwards rather than Hillary Clinton and in their claims that Sen. Obama’s health care plan will exclude 15 million people when in fact every person will have the opportunity to participate. This dishonesty is giving our union a “black eye” among many in the media and the progressive community.
Earlier this week, The Concord Monitor reported that voters had received emails criticizing Mr. Obama’s health care plan as “a Band-aid solution” that would leave “15 million Americans uninsured.” (We are pretty sure Mrs. Clinton has used the same term — Band-aid solution — to refer to plans that weren’t hers.) These mails included comments by John Edwards that criticized the Obama plan, The Monitor said, which residents could have inferred meant they were backed by Mr. Edwards and his supporters.
But, no, they were financed by an AFCSCME committee. The Monitor reported that AFSCME had spent nearly $80,000 on such mailings recently. And it had paid for radio ads, as we mentioned earlier.
The issue of primary endorsements has been loudly debated among labor unions. And in fact, some unions or their umbrella organizations decided not to endorse in the primaries — sometimes citing the fact that the field was fairly strong. Others, remembering how they were stung by supporting a candidate who lost in previous cycles, were still skittish this time around.
If you read the entire letter by members of the board, you can sense their concerns about such a scenario. It’s pretty palpable.

Hillary won this debate. While I prefer Edwards, he was tired and strident tonight. Obama's great-sounding but empty rhetoric is wearing thin. He's the master of the meaningless beautiful statement, and I'm so disappointed in the Dems that have fallen for him. It's all just nice-sounding rhetoric. Look at his record: he's the candidate big money wants you to support, and he signals wildy to anyone that's paying attention that he will not take big money on. He's the latest faux progressive put up by big money to lose on purpose -- this time to McCain. God how any times have I seen this happen. It's so depressing. But you can't argue with his believers -- they're running on faith, and will be crushed when it happens. Again.

Richardson has a lot of nerve staying in this after giving his Iowa support to Obama; if he wants to run pick for someone he should play in the NBA. Time and again he leapt in to attack Clinton and set up Obama for the dunk. Clearly a deal has been made. They should both be ashamed. "New direction" -- HAH!

Either Hillary or Edwards would be fine with me. Hillary really handled herself like a president tonight. Women should pay heed; we may not get another chance.

We hear in New England should know better than to vote for Barack Obama. Look at Governor Deval Patrick. He's an "empty suit"... He ran a campaign on hope and optimism, but had no specifics and no experience to back it up. Seriously, where's the beef? Deval hasn't changed the "politics as usual"... he's been eaten alive by the democratic power brokers on Beacon Hill. The same will happen to Barack Obama. Where's the beef? A nice idealistic slogan wont produce real change in this country. We need someone like Hillary who's been around the block, knows how the game is played, and can actually accomplish things. PLEASE, democrats, don't let your heart overrule your head. Obama is full of empty promises and will leave you disappointed.

35 years of what? One health care failure, and one bill limiting violence in video games. If you were to divide by a more reasonable number, like seven years, it's still a bad record. Meanwhile, Obama can count four major bipartisan bills passed (funding transparency, ethics reform, veteran's health care, and immigration control) in his first two years. 35 years? Being the spouse of a reviled small state governor at age 31 is equivalent to Obama's stellar record in the Illinois senate? All those "present" votes were democratic party strategy. If you would read the full article in the NY Times, and were not trying to deliberately spin, that would be obvious. Quoting the Hernandez-Drew article, "Sometimes the 'present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support." On inauguration day, Obama's legislative experience of a dozen years will roughly equal that of JFK. If Bill Clinton wants to say it is one year on the national stage, then he had zero years on the national stage in 1991. The national press, in response to the Harvard Law Review election, picked Obama as a future presidential candidate in 1988, 20 years ago. Even if you thought Hillary Clinton should follow Bill Clinton as president, as early as 1992, that was only 16 years ago!

I think it's interesting to read the combative, and sometimes even vicious, posts that are left by Obama's followers..... On the one hand, pushing for "a new kind of politics," all the while shouting it's praises by using the very rhetoric and tactics they're supposedly fighting against. I wonder if Obama is as two-faced as some of his groupies.....

I liked this;

"I think it's easy to be cynical and just say, 'You know what? It can't be done, because Washington is designed to resist change'," Obama said. "The truth is, actually, words do inspire, words do help people get involved, words do help members of Congress get into power."

How about this;

Mike Huckabee Said, "I think we ought also to recognize that what Senator Obama has done is to touch at the core of something Americans want. He has excited a lot of voters, let's pay respect for that.

"He is a likeable person who has excited people about wanting to vote who have not wanted to vote in the past," said Huckabee

Obama to Clinton, "What I think is important that we don't do is try to distort each other's records as election day approaches here in New Hampshire.

"What I think the people of America are looking for are people who are going to be straight about the issues," Obama said.

John Edwards in defence of Obama from Clintons attack, "Forces of status quo go on the offensive whenever the Washington consensus came under threat".

"I didn't see thise kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead. Now that's she's not, we hear them, anytime you speak out for change, this is what happens." Said Edwards

Obama is the choice of people who know "solutions" aren't the answer to our problems, leadership is.

All these Democrats that are focused on identifying the causes of our challenges and coming up with specific solutions are missing the point: Obama knows that what we really need is someone with the conviction to articulate our common aspirations of reaching for a vision.

Sure, some people will say that we shouldn't yearn for the conviction to articulate our common aspiration to reach for a vision, that we should be focused on identifying the causes of our problems and looking for "solutions" -- but that's just "business as usual" in Washington. That's just "partisan bickering."

Obama will rise above solving our problems by taking on the partisan opposition to change, and instead articulate our common aspirations to reach for a vision is a bipartisan way. That's why he continues to echo right-wing talking points on Social Security, single-payer health care, the use of 527 money in elections, the bankruptcy bill -- the list goes on and on.

And that's why he's taken so much money from the banking, pharmaceutical, and investment industries. Because his leadership is about articulating a vision and motivating others to reach for it.

So stop focusing on "solutions", because solutions are the answers to out problems: leadership is. And America Needs Obama.

What experience does Clinton really have?Bill was the president not her.All she did was try and destroy the health care system and got caught.She was told very quickly to sit down and shut up;which she did for the remaining 7yrs.If being the wife of a president gives you experience by osmosis then Mrs.Bush is just as qualified as Clinton.She is old hat and needs to go home and bake her cookies.

We want change! The Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton spin cycle is not working anymore. Hillary Clinton’s most important "experience" was messing up healthcare reform in the early nineties, voting for the war in Iraq, and most recently just a few weeks ago proving she hasn't learned a thing by voting for the Bush warmongering bill to declare Iran's military to be "terrorists." Neither did Hillary’s husband Bill help her out of any of these bad decisions. Unlike Hillary, Obama was right on Iraq from the start. He is a unifier, not a divider. United we stand, divided we fall. No unity, no change. It's that simple.

obama is not a muslim, you idiot, he is christian. these are these are the scare tactics that hillary uses. with all her experience she stil voted to go to war in iraq. obama was against the war when that wasn't the popular opinion. what does that tell you about her 35 years of experience

Hillary does not have 35 years of experience, quit lying! She was in the Senate four years longer than Obama and all that adds up to is a yes vote for Iraq. You can say it a million times but America is finally getting past such obfuscating mythology. Someone said it first, the same politics that drove Bush are what HRC is turning to now.

Hillary does not have 35 years of experience, quit lying! She was in the Senate four years longer than Obama and all that adds up to is a yes vote for Iraq. You can say it a million times but America is finally getting past such obfuscating mythology. Someone said it first, the same politics that drove Bush are what HRC is turning to now.

Go Hillary go! I hope she WINS!