'The Rising?' Hillary hopes so ... with tunes

How 'bout 'the thrill is gone' ...?

The new USA Today/Gallup poll has Obama up by 13 points, 41% to Hillary's 28%, with John Edwards at 19%.

The new CNN/WMUR poll has Obama up by 10 points, 39% to Hillary's 27%, with John Edwards at 16%.

The new Strategic Vision poll has Obama up by 9 points, 38% to Hillary's 29%, with John Edwards at 19%.

The new ARG poll has Obama up by 12 points, 38% to Hillary's 26%, with John Edwards at 20%.

The new Rasmussen poll has Obama up by 12 points, 39% to Hillary's 27%, with John Edwards at 18%.

Sure folks...we can vote for experience over change. That's what we've done in the past. Look at what it got us: Nixon, Reagan, Bush. Experience doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. Someone can be very experienced in their very ineptness. But that's not a positive! Dubya is a very good example of that.

Our country does need change...in the worst possible way. We cannot continue to demonstrate the same inept ways of thinking and acting and expect the results to ever be different than the status quo. I am ready for a man like Obama who is willing to look anew at our challenges. Someone who is not so ingrained with the powerful Washington infrastructure that he still has the ability and guts to ask, "Is there a better way we can do this?" We need someone who can think outside of the box--and see our possibilities rather than our limitations.

So those of you who are steeped in the dogma of experience, please move out of the way...as Sam Cooke once sang, "a change is gonna come." And that's a train you're not going to be able to stop.

The USA is a complex Living organism that needs love, guidance and dedication to guide its destiny in the Global World.
Obama has been misguided to think that He can Guide the USA and the Pride of its people and make us Citizens like him because of the rhetoric of passion about our ideals or his opposition to War, or because he is of color.
He is a Freshman Senator, he went to Indonesia for the Cameras, when the Earthquakes and the Tsunami Hit he Was not there.He went to Alabama and walked the Bridges for the Cameras.The 2 black ministers endorsements he was using have pulled out..Just where is Oprah or Jesse Jackson, or ----Sen. Durbin.
Obama is a man of convenience for himself. Hallary's experience is my Vote.

On "change":
Voters are ready for the Obama "unite and govern" recipe for governing and are fed up with the status quo "divide and conquer" (triangulation) recipe used by Clinton and other entrenched politicians.

On "experience":
Obama is not the first person to run for President with only 2 years experience in the Senate. Abraham Lincoln also ran for President against the entrenched politicians of his day. Lincoln won and became one of the best presidents (if not the best) ever elected.

Change for change's sake does no one any good. Just getting a new President evokes change. What are they planning to change and are their plans realistic? Hillary knows it's not easy - she's been there. She's a thinker, a pragmatist, not a flag waver. When the campaigning is done who will be a better president?

Change for change's sake does no one any good. Just getting a new President evokes change. What are they planning to change and are their plans realistic? Hillary knows it's not easy - she's been there. She's a thinker, a pragmatist, not a flag waver. When the campaigning is done who will be a better president?

Manik Bhatia, you should at least be able to spell the candidate you so blindly follow. Hallary = Hillary I guess? Is it it Billary?

She brought us to the middle east with Bush and his cronies. I could never vote for someone who did that. Never.

Anybody who thinks voting for a woman's presidency is indicative of the politics of the staus quo has been spending too much time in the men's room. The rest of us are starting to wonder what you've been doing in there so long...perhaps fussing with your $400 haircut.

Look, former Sen. Edwards is a professional passionate advocate, that's what he does. Sen. Obama's voting record seems mundane. Sen. Clinton has been marshaling the fight for universal health care now for a decade and a half; were it not for her, we'd be arguing about some other issue. Those are facts, whatever other concerns are at stake.

We're not picking a monarch. None of these Democrats would have a disastrous presidency (e.g. Sen. Biden would have made a fine Chief Executive). Let's not pick the next Democractic party candidate on the basis of some facile slogan, OK? "Change"? Wow, what a concept. Never heard that one before.

What is imperative is that we not so savage the Democratic candidacies that there is no one remaining acceptable to the body politic after the primary season is concluded. Given the state of the Union and the world, this is not optional, but it is a real and present danger.

How does six years in the Senate and one year campaigning translate to 35 years of experience ? Must be Akansas math...or is she a Chicago girl?..or maybe a New Yorker. Oh well...whatever is convenient

Anybody who thinks voting for a woman's presidency is indicative of the politics of the staus quo has been spending too much time in the men's room. The rest of us are starting to wonder what you've been doing in there so long...perhaps fussing with your $400 haircut.

Look, former Sen. Edwards is a professional passionate advocate, that's what he does. Sen. Obama's voting record seems mundane. Sen. Clinton has been marshaling the fight for universal health care now for a decade and a half; were it not for her, we'd be arguing about some other issue. Those are facts, whatever other concerns are at stake.

We're not picking a monarch. None of these Democrats would have a disastrous presidency (e.g. Sen. Biden would have made a fine Chief Executive). Let's not pick the next Democractic party candidate on the basis of some facile slogan, OK? "Change"? Wow, what a concept. Never heard that one before.

What is imperative is that we not so savage the Democratic candidacies that there is no one remaining acceptable to the body politic after the primary season is concluded. Given the state of the Union and the world, this is not optional, but it is a real and present danger.

polls polls we still have get up and vote!

First Issue: Hillary did not vote for us to go to war. Condoleezza Rice and President Bush Jr. personally assured the senators in congress that the intent for passing the bill was so that, should inspections fail, and ONLY IF they fail, then they would have to use some level of force, just like Bush Sr. did and Mr. Clinton. No one criticized them for that because it was thought to be the right thing to do then and now. The people you should be upset with are those in the White House who misled us, not our congress, they were misinformed. It was easy for the public to say don't do it, because we knew nothing about what the report said. Mr. Obama was not a U.S. senator at the time and, therefore, never had the obligation to vote, nor did he have access to the report administered to congress, so we don't really know what he would have done.
Second Issue: Comparing Obama (Democrat) to Abraham Lincoln (Republican) is like comparing apples to oranges. Lincoln’s experience did include being a lawyer and serving in Congress well before he became our 16th President of the United States. The entire political and social climate of the U.S. in 1861 was very different than it is today. International relations weren’t really an issue besides our connection with Britain. Historically, the U.S. was an isolationist government until WWII when we were forced to enter the war after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. We didn’t get involved in wars because we didn’t fear international conflicts washing up on our shores. Making associations with Kennedy is also an error, because, again, our threat during the Cold War was the U.S.S.R., another superpower nation, which basically created a zero-sum playing field; meaning, no one wanted a nuclear war so the checks and balances of power played themselves out. The new diffused, diasporas terrorist groups are a new and different threat that our government is still striving to understand how to best address this matter. This is not unusual, because during WWII we were not prepared strategically at a military level either until the development of the Mac Arthur Plan, which carried us well through the Cold War. Technology has certainly complicated the matter, making it more difficult for intelligence to track extremely mobile terrorist groups. Hence, the playing field is completely different today than it was more than a century ago or even 50 years ago. I should note that, according to General Zinni, and other military strategist who do believe in diplomatic efforts, former President Clinton came the closest to establishing a horizontal military strategy that allows defense and intelligence departments to seamlessly communicate with one another, which would have likely prevented 9/11 and would increase our response time to any potential threat. Historically, presidents who lack experience, skill, and knowledge of the various issues facing our country, such as Carter and George W. Bush Jr., tend do very poorly in the oval office. Do you want another four years of on the job training? This makes our president vulnerable to the influence of various aides with conflicting opinions. A thoroughly knowledgeable base is necessary to independently sort through all the issues and recommendations that our next president will receive.
Third Issue: Polls…never listen to polls! The WMUR/CNN only included ~347 voters on the Democratic side or leaning Democratic. I hardly could fathom that this is the entire population of NH. Moreover, we do not know how they determined their sampling, and statistics show that confounding factors, such as time of day, day of the week, and other lifestyle habits can skew results dramatically.
Fourth Issue: CHANGE. Ask anyone in IL whether they believe Mr. Obama has personally changed their lives as State Senator until 2004 and as U.S. Senator since then, and you will find yourself searching endlessly for a positive answer. Please search the blogs and ask your friends and relatives who live in IL, they should know better than anyone his track record for change. When the candidates were asked during the debate, “What do you consider to be your MOST significant contribution to change?” Mr. Obama replied that he passed legislation in congress to prohibit lobbyist from buying dinners for congressman, and Charlie Gibson quickly called him on it by saying that it only stated that they could not sit at the table, but that they could stand and eat. Mr. Obama had no response. Edwards tried to state that he passed the Patient Bill of Rights, and this time Mrs. Clinton called him on it and said that it was passed by the Senate, but not by the House, hence, dismissing his claim. Mr. Edwards had no response. In the end, of all four candidates, Mrs. Clinton Health Care initiatives, such as SCHIP, were the only substantiated claims of change. So a candidate’s record does count. Moreover, the magnitude of change is also important to consider, because in order to create change in a country such as ours, you need to know how to navigate the system to deliver the change you seek. You also need to be well networked in order to cross party lines. Mrs. Clinton worked for some time with Senator McCain on investigating global warming issues and passing legislation and with another Republican Senator, whose name I cannot unfortunately recall at the time (you can find out by watching Mr. Clinton’s speech yesterday 01/06/08 in NH) and who happened to try to impeach former President Clinton as well, to pass legislation that helped several children in foster care, including disabled children, enter into permanent homes. So her track record for change and working across party lines to effect change definitely speaks for itself.
MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE AND VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE WHO QUALIFIES FOR THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB IN OUR COUNTRY…SENATOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON!

"Change" and "experience" are slogans. Obama and Clinton are basically the same. Look at where their campaigns get their financing. These two are corporations disguised as human beings.

The last time the USA was in a funk of this sort was post-Watergate. We wanted an outsider, and in Jimmy Carter , we got one. Although for the prescience of his ideas on our energy problems and human rights Carter looks better in hindsight, it was his ineptitude that subordinated those ideas to the bottom of the pile. Clinton is a tired old war horse, and she is an agent of real-politik at a time when both parties aspire for the transcendental. She will lose in NH. And her political death will be in SC. Let's hope Obama has the moral courage to take us forward. I am no fan, however. My greatest fear is that he is black silk suit, glossy but empty.

Gee, if my memory is correct wasn't "change" and "partnership" buzz words of the Bush campaign in 2000! No one ever said that Bush supporters were voting for "experience" when they voted for W. Let's hope that the Democrats don't repeat the Republicans' mistake of 2000--getting a candidate elected, who has been a disaster for our country, based on the idea of "change."

Something tells me that when Springsteen wrote 'The Rising', he wasn't thinking about presidential campaign poll numbers. This is almost as bad as Reagan wanting to use 'Born in the USA' for his personal gain back in the 80's. Classic case of politicians missing the point.

Something tells me that when Springsteen wrote 'The Rising', he wasn't thinking about presidential campaign poll numbers. This is almost as bad as Reagan wanting to use 'Born in the USA' for his personal gain back in the 80's. Classic case of politicians missing the point.

In 1995 Barack Obama wrote in in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father,"
"If more people spoke up, perhaps things might change....."
He has not wavered from his beliefs, and he believes in authenticity and straigh talk, so we can all be agents of change....

KT

I think of all the contestants ahem candidates that Hilary would probably be the best bet due to the fact that she was first lady for 8 years and Bill sort of knew (the Monica thing notwithstanding) what he was doing and has "connections". What does the average person really know? What the government chooses to tell us. I do know that this country now, thanks to George W. , is very much hated around the world and all those terrorists are scheming and plotting their next move against us. Maybe Bill wasnt perfect either but he didnt put us in a war with no end in sight. At least back then (Clinton days) an average person could afford a car, apartment and maybe a few extras. Now people are lucky to live paycheck to paycheck, thats if they have jobs in the first place.

I love when people like ladygreenslippers attempt to impress the public with their vast knowledge of history. Good job. If you want to really know what people of Illinois think of Obama, just read their newspaper. Read it. See what black Chicagoans think of his victory in Iowa. Want to see hope first hand? Want to see inspiration? And then try to find another Dem inspiring so many people, and bring it here.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/726112,CST-NWS-ssideweb04.stng

First and foremost, it was not posted by ladygreenslippers, Mr. Snerrick. Secondly, it is not about impressing, but rather about educating each other, and that is what these blogs are intended for. How about asking ALL Illinois residents for their opinion? I am a former native Illinois resident and therefore know many people of all races who lives there. Isn't Mr. Obama's point to be a uniter and not a divider? So asking to look at only African American Illinois residents' opinion sounds very divisive and skewed to say the least. Take care.

First and foremost, it was not posted by ladygreenslippers, Mr. Snerrick. Secondly, it is not about impressing, but rather about educating each other, and that is what these blogs are intended for. How about asking ALL Illinois residents for their opinion? I am a former native Illinois resident and; therefore, know many people of all races who live there. Isn't Mr. Obama's point to be a uniter and not a divider? So asking to look at only African American Illinois residents' opinion sounds very divisive and skewed to say the least. Take care.

None of the above will win in a landslide......

Clinton is always commenting on how her experience makes her a much better canidate then her rival, Barack Obama. However I'm suprised that most people think that experience is a good thing to have. Some experience is definitly needed for the presidency, but by the time you spend the past three decades in Washington, you would be following whatever is happening there good or bad. This is what Clinton is doing. We need a new face, someone who hasn't been affected by corrupted Washington politics. If you don't understand what I'm saying, just watch "Mr.Smith goes to washington".
On another note... Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield have a lot more experience than Hillary Clinton. However, where did all their experience lead them? To a endless war and $10 trillion dollars in debt. As you can see, experience clearly won't solve the US's financial woes. Barack Obama has shown that he can bring republicans, democrats and independents. He will breeze past John McCain in November. Barack Obama is the next BARACKY!