Obama gains ground in new poll

Posted: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:43 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Democrats, Republicans

From NBC's Mark Murray
A new national Gallup poll finds that Barack Obama is gaining ground on Hillary Clinton. In the Democratic horserace, Clinton leads Obama, 31%-26% -- followed by Edwards at 16% and Gore at 15%; no other Democrat gets more than 3%. A Gallup poll earlier this month had Clinton up on Obama by 19 points (38%-19%).

Perhaps more troublesome for Clinton is that 52% have an unfavorable opinion of her in the poll, versus 45% who have a favorable view. By comparison, Obama has a 52%-27% fav/unfav rating.

In the GOP field, Giuliani is at 35%, McCain at 22%, Fred Thompson at 10%, and Romney at 9%. Moreover, the poll finds that just 36% approve of Bush's job; only 25% approve of Alberto Gonzales' job; and just 26% believe the troop surge in Iraq is making the situation there better.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

This poll says volumes. Gore isn't even a candidate and he polls 15%. The people are not happy with the choices so far. Al, maybe its time for you to step up and bring this country together.

sandra wilton erie, kansas (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:05 PM)

Despite being a Democrat, I really can't stand Hillary. She's never come off as very genuine. If we put her up for election in '08, she'd be little more than a female version of Gore and Kerry: stiff, lacking a personality and not at all able to relate to the common person. Democrats need to start thinking of the big picture.

Patrick, Minneapolis (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:06 PM)

Hillary can't win the presidency with a 52% unfavorable rating. That 52% unfavorable is a guaranteed loss for the Democratic party. That 52% isn't going to change much. I'd be surprised if Al Gore didn't have a similar unfavorable rating. It's time to turn the page. Hillary is too tied up with Whitewater, Monicagate, NAFTA and the Democratic Leadership Council (sic) to be an effective candidate. She proven herself a self-serving opportunist by voting for the Iraq War. If all the Senate Democrats has shown integrity and courage, there wouldn't have been an Iraq War. There's plenty of honest leadership in the Democratic party: Obama, Edwards and Richardson. Let's go with them and not discredited old hacks. Haven't we learned from the Bush "dynasty" ? Bye, bye Hillary

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:20 PM)

People should really take a serious look at Obama. Not because he gives good speeches, or because he's a "rising star" in the party. He's strong on substance, answers questions, and has a new and much needed approach to managing the Washington bureaucracy. Further, he's one of the few candidates that got his start working with real people. He's not insulated, nor ignorant of the reality of life for middle America. Traditional democrats need to give hime a serious look.

Paul Davis, San Francisco, CA (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:29 PM)

My, my! How the rabid left so quickly turns upon itself in the political cannibalism of hate. Donkey as your national symbol and jackass as your mental frame of reference, both loosers in the long run.

Objective, Montpelier, VT (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:35 PM)

Subjective, even biased, objectivity?

Scott in South Texas (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:55 PM)

yeah - those "loosers." Well said.

uh huh (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:55 PM)

Objective(?): In the minds of many, Clinton is not the best candidate for the democratic party. As I have said before, i am a rabid democrat, but cannot and will not vote for her. So my fervent hope is that someone else wins the nomination. And a fervent hope is a far cry from political cannibalism of hate. Your post is ridiculous.

pcaloger Bushkill, PA 18324 (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:58 PM)

I just absolutely love the "lefties are hate mongers" meme that has permiated the right wing talking points. NEWS FLASH: If you want to see hate speech go check out a speech by Jerry Falwell, Bill Donahue, Bill O'Reily, Michael Savage, etc. Heck, Guliani is the GOP's best last hope and he won't get the nomination because he doesn't quite hate the poor and gay people enough and supports abortion rights. The "big tent" party indeed...

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 3:58 PM)

A link to the Gallup Poll?

Rob (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:11 PM)

I don't think the American Public would vote for Woman or a Black at this point. I don't care who they are. There still to much racism and the women have still not broken through glass ceiling.

GAReece Louisville Kentucky (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:12 PM)

Please, let us not fight among ourselves when we have so many important issues to resolve, such as: WASHINGTON - Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies. The Democrat's campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission. FEC records show Edwards also availed himself of $250 in services from a trendy salon and spa in Dubuque, Iowa, and $225 in services from the Pink Sapphire in Manchester, N.H., which is described on its Web site as "a unique boutique for the mind, body and face" that caters mostly to women. A spokeswoman for Edwards' campaign did not respond to requests for comment

Joey, Bev Hills (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:17 PM)

Sierra - Just a head's up, John Edwards voted for the Iraq invasion, too. Yes, he has now declared that vote to be a mistake - which could be seen as equally opportunistic given the current political climate - but if voting against it is the benchmark for integrity and courage, you should cross him off your short list.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:23 PM)

Do you watch the same shows you did in 1992? can you even find them in the deepest recesses of the cable spectrum? and if you do find them, maybe on Nick at Night, don't they look quaint and flawed? it's not just the war vote or flag-burning, it's the slow demise of the Clinton brand, it's a gathering Hillary-fatigue. now this is a sorry thing to say about a human being who is somebody's mother and somebody's wife, and one with a fine record of public service at that. but we are not simply seeking a slightly retooled model from the Democratic assembly line--the next generation Ford Escort. We are yearning for someone to lift us out of this morass, to win back for our democracy the admiration of the world, and to do so unburdened by past errors and without the encumbrances that inevitably accumulate during thirty years of compromise and deal-making.

Willie Stark, Bronx, NY (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:45 PM)

I see that Sierra is part of the "We Hate Hillary for No Good Reason Club." First off hun, you need to get your facts straight; Within their own ranks, in both houses combined, Congressional Democrats voted against the war in Iraq by a count of 147-110. On the other hand, Republicans voted 296-6 among themselves in FAVOR of going to war. I'll thank you to stop echoeing the "Whacko Nut-Job Third Party Line," that Democrats voted for the war. Because, simply put, they did not. Secondly, polls that are taken at this juncture in relationship to the actual election mean NOTHING. At this point in 2003, The Polls had Howard Dean as the Democratic front runner and Wesley Clark beating Bush head to head. Neither prognostication worked out very well, as we all saw the following year. It's hard enough that Democrats have to put up with republiCANTS lying about their stance on the issues, as well as their performance in government. We shouldn't have to fight off LIES from people who claim to be Democrats too. We will NOT be helpless, we will NOT be made to think we can't win, and we will NOT fall prey to the kind of Third Party GARBAGE that tore us apart in 2000 and 2004. Get with the program Sierra, and stop whining! EITHER LEAD, FOLLOW, or GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY! But whichever you choose, please do not attempt to divide our party just because YOU have a hair up your wa-zoo for Hillary! GO DEMOCRATS! RESTORE DEMOCRACY in 2008!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:11 PM)

It's so silly to bicker. We should be happy we have several strong candidates, all well-heeled and can only do the country good and better than we have experienced heretofore! Obama DOES have good credentials, he IS a fresh face but not inexperienced, he has the acumen, the potential, the integrity and passion, and broad appeal, which can unite rather than divide. I was all for Hillary but I think she missed her opportunity at the last election. THAT's when we needed her. She is also playing it so very careful that it makes on uneasy. Some courage is looked for.

Carol McFarlane, Yakima, WA (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:45 PM)

Once again, I believe that the next president of this United States hasn't even put their hat into the ring yet. So, stay tuned America.

James C. Rickett, Tampa, Fl (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:13 PM)

I love this. Obama's got it not matter what. Get Bush outta here.

John Lawrence, Kansas City, MO (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 7:13 PM)

J Merle: The SENATE voted 77 to 23 to support the Iraq war. 23 Senators had the courage to vote against the war. 21 of those who voted against the war were Democrats, Chafee-R and Jeffords-I joined those brave Democrats to oppose Bush's war. Democrats against: Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd... Dayton, Durbin, Feingold ... Kennedy, Leahy.... a full list is at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237 Hillary Clinton voted YES, let's go to war, let's sacrafice innocent lives. let's preserve my "political viability". J Merle, if the Senate Democrats had voted solidly against the resolution, Bush, Cheney + Rove would have been foiled. If ALL the Senate Democrats had stood up to Bush, the war might have been averted. Hillary deserves some of that blame. You can't run and you can't hide, Hillary. Maybe that's part of the reason for her 52% negative rating.

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:06 PM)

It is interesting that the mantra of the media is that the GOP is unsatisfied with their candidates while the Dems are happy-go-lucky. The only evidence usually given is that Thompson, when included in the polls, shakes things up so much. Does not Gore, when added, do the same for Dems, garnering 15% just as Thompson does? The only other evidence presented is self-reported satisfaction, and as a student of psychology, I understand how fickle and unreliable such "evidence" is; in this case it may be the product of Dem's feel-good momentum coming out of '06 and not of any overarching satisfaction with their candidates. Perhaps it arises from the stark contrast of the GOP's candidates social issue positions as compared to their base, but again, this argument fails given the fact that Dems consistently pander to the middle and not their base these days. As someone certain to vote Democratic in '08, I could imagine a much better Democratic field: Bill Richardson getting much more play, for one. Richardson is, bar none, the most experienced, rational candidate running for either side.

Vridar, Seattle (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:30 PM)

Sandra of Kansas--Did I read right that you think Al Gore is the one to "bring this country together"? Did you mean "bring the Democratic party together"? I, for one, think he should stick to environmental activism, where he has done more than anyone in history to bring global awareness to the global assault on our home, planet Earth.

Vridar, Seattle (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:35 PM)

Any Dem candidate, even a random person off the street, would be so less destructive to our country than the president we have now. I really don't care which one wins, whoever it is must win. I don't think it is productive tear any of them down and I don't think it is productive for them to tear each other down. The strategy should be to prove that they can beat whoever is the Republican candidate and winning the primary will take care of itself.

Russell in Maryland (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:20 PM)

Obama is the voice of conscience America needs. Clinton is the voice of middle class insecurity which would settle on more of the same, this time wearing a dress. Gender is no big deal; look at Margaret Thatcher, who took the UK to war over a few rocks in the Atlantic. Hillary is on a personal mission fueled by narcissistic gender longings from followers like Billy Jean King.

John Denton, Santa Fe, NM (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:38 PM)

Objective, what would be better? Blue kool-aid or red kool-aid? Neither's any good.

Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Tuesday, April 17, 2007 11:57 PM)

If that is what it is going to take for Hillary to lead the democratic party to ruin in 08, then go Hillary go! You libs are just so out of touch with america. I sit here and read these posts and really have a laugh at what you think is the problems in America. Only problem on my screen is Iraq. Economy is going good, I'm making money, Oh no, it's the health issue. What health issue. No it's the global warming. Still not proven yet. Gun control. Think we've covered that everytime there is a shooting and everyone will flap their gums about it and then move on. Come on Libs, what is the beef? I'll be listening to this when Rudy or Fred or John or Mitt wins the election over your people and then it will be one of them that your hatred for anything conservative will be just as hot as it is today. If you listen to CNN or MSNBC, they are wondering when Nancy and the boys are going to get with the program. Just remember, 08 is next year and some of these people in the democratic party just don't look too good right now.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:24 AM)

It's the land of "opportunity" isn't it? Well,let's make way for some new blook. First Bush then Clinton. Now another Bush and what, another Clinton? I think NOT!! America doesn't have a line of succession to the presidency.

Michael (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:57 AM)

Edwards not only voted for that resolution but he co-sponsored it. He should have listened to his wife who apparently told him what a big mistake it was. Even if his vote was not out of political calculation, he is clueless about the world. Edwards: righteousness + ignorance Obama: righteousness + vision Clinton: calculation + establishment I think it is an easy formula to solve. The democrats will solve it in due course.

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:16 AM)

There is no comparison: Barack Obama is the very best we can have now I like Mr. Obama a lot. He is the man with a clear vision, loves people, cares about this country, and has integrity. I believe he is the only person that will be capable to do the right things for us all. I like everything he stands for. His honesty and his consistent standing against the war places him above all the most likely candidates to be elected by the people. He is a competent citizen and will be a great model for men and women in this country who have started to realize that together we can accomplish a great deal. People need to hear him, read his books and donate as much money as possible. There is no potential Democratic candidate that sees our realities as clearly as he does. This is the biggest difference and thus the only qualified candidate at this moment.

Berta Armacanqui, Wisconsin (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:25 AM)

I am surprised to hear that Mrs Clinton “laid out a 10-point plan to cut out the "culture of cronyism," corruption, as well as to increase transparency in government." What a joke!. All of a sudden she wants to appear a different person, uncorrupted and honest. How come she kept quiet all these years. How did she survive for so long and get all "her experience" then? She still has no qualms to continue receiving money from lobbies and special interest groups now. She can not help it. Such a contradiction. Frankly, she should include herself in her plan and eliminate herself right now because she not only is already very much tainted, but no intelligent and informed democrat will vote for her. As far as the war and other issues, her narrow view of the world and her inconsistencies are constantly shown. She is wishy washy, changing colors like a chameleon. She even has started copying and using the same original good ideas and language of other candidates as she is openly trying to imitate the more capable candidates. This in of itself says much about her. She is definitely incapable of reaching the majority of the voters to change our present state. She seems to believe that in order to be nominated, all she has to do is to collect many endorsements. We do not know how and with what promises she is getting them. Obviously, Mrs. Clinton needs to see and experience different lives and to live a completely different reality than the one she is used to. She is living in the fictitious world that has been set by the life she has lived so far. She said that she wants to go back to the White House because she misses it. If by chance, she is placed there, she will not hesitate to do what her husband did as he paved the path for the present regime. For example, NAFTA, his baby, is hurting so many poor countries now. She is not fit to become president for many voters that are suspicious of her as she changes her ideas so easily that no one knows what she truly believes or stands for.

Berta Armacanqui (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:38 AM)

All of a sudden Mrs. Clinton wants to appear a different person, uncorrupted and honest. How come she kept quiet all these years. How did she survive for so long and get all "her experience" then? She still has no qualms to continue receiving money from lobbies and special interest groups now. She can not help it. Such a contradiction. Frankly, she should include herself in her plan and eliminate herself right now because she not only is already very much tainted, but no intelligent and informed democrat will vote for her. As far as the war and other issues, her narrow view of the world and her inconsistencies are constantly shown. She is wishy washy, changing colors like a chameleon. She even has started copying and using the same original good ideas and language of other candidates as she is openly trying to imitate the more capable candidates. This in of itself says much about her. She is definitely incapable of reaching the majority of the voters to change our present state. She seems to believe that in order to be nominated, all she has to do is to collect many endorsements. We do not know how and with what promises she is getting them. Obviously, Mrs. Clinton needs to see and experience different lives and to live a completely different reality than the one she is used to. She is living in the fictitious world that has been set by the life she has lived so far. She said that she wants to go back to the White House because she misses it. If by chance, she is placed there, she will not hesitate to do what her husband did as he paved the path for the present regime. For example, NAFTA, his baby, is hurting so many poor countries now. She is not fit to become president for many voters that are suspicious of her as she changes her ideas so easily that no one knows what she truly believes or stands for.

Berta Armacanqui (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:44 AM)

I like the clintons but I think it's time for the new leadership Obama brings. I really like the way he handled himself during his 8 years as state senator

ronald (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:29 AM)

There you go Joey, Bev Hills, there is nothing more to berate John Edwards for, so let's pick on him for what is spent on personal hygiene. Find a real issue to debate not this petty crap.

Susan, Nebraska (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:45 AM)

I second Susan's response to Joey. I mean, we just had a massacre in Virginia, Iraq hasn't gone away, and we still need to pay attention to Katrina recovery, the borders, and many other issues both domestic and international. I doubt John Edwards' hair and what he spends on it are high on the list. It just reminds me of the story of Bill Clinton's $200 haircut on the tarmac at the L.A. Airport, which later turned out not to be true.

Olivia (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:18 AM)

"Give me a head full of hair, long beautiful hair...."--From the musical "Hair"

Dorothy (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:20 AM)

"Shampoo"--A funny movie

Dorothy (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:20 AM)

"Hairspray"--Another movie

Dorothy (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:21 AM)

I am a REPUBLICAN who is voting FOR OBAMA. I have read both of his books and am in awe. Never before have I been inspired like this. Please give him your serious consideration.

Bob Kenyon, Plano, TX (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 10:22 AM)

Sierra.........the Senate is NOT the only house of Government. Check the roll call vote for BOTH houses, dear. If the Democratic party had a majority in BOTH houses the measure wouldn't have passed. But WHINERS like you saw to it that they didn't. Thusly, I blame Iraq on people like YOU as much as I do anybody else. What about the 296 republicans (in BOTH houses) who voted in favor of going to war? Why don't you mention anything about THEM? You seem to forget, when that vote was taken we had just been attacked 13 months before. We had The President of The United States running all over the country saying things like "we cannot wait for the smoking gun that will come in the form of a mushroom cloud." If you took the time to go to Hillary's website, and READ the letter she wrote to her constituents in November of 2005, (instead of spouting the third party / code pink crowd's mantra) you would learn WHY she voted to give Bush the discretionary authority to use military force in Iraq, AND you would also learn how/why she now feels it was a mistake. You would also learn what she intends to do about it. Instead, you choose to viciously assail her and do all you can to divide liberals and Democrats the same way third party idiots did in 2000 and 2004. I am not necesarrily a Hillary supporter. I am at this point,an uncommitted Democrat, and I will choose my candidate sometime between mow and January of next year. But, if the party nominates Hillary, so be it. I will support and vote for her. You're just a Hillary hater. Someone who spouts off about her because republicans tell you that you should. We don't need divisiveness within our own ranks. It only helps republicans get elected. If that's what you want (and I suspect that it is), then keep on doing what you're doing.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 11:06 AM)

After reading "The Audacity of Hope" in one day, not that I dont have a life (a full time job, wife, and gym membership for three days a week), I can say that Obama is light years ahead of most politicians on issues. His type come in generations (FDR, Kennedy, Lincoln, Washington). He gets it, the people, governing. Bob in Texas you are not the first Republican i have seen or heard that is voting for Obama. Hopefully, the American people see what many are seeing and we dont have to pick the lesser of two evils this time, we can pick the one that is best qualified to do the job.

John, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:00 PM)

Obama is a nice change from the cold hearted, darwinism of the neo-conservative right. As a libral I miss true conservatives. They were good people and you could disagree with them without being disagreeable. Neo-Cons have got to go. Please conservatives take back your party for the good of us all.

G, Springfield, Il (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:35 PM)

I think this Country needs someone fresh and real. When I look at all the candidates positioning themselve for the next President, I can't think of any that comes close to that essence or new beginning than Obama. But, he can not do this alone. This should be our campaign. It is our call to make. Let's spread his good message of one American all the way to the White House. Yes! We can.

Robinson Zuby, Puyallup, Wash. (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 12:40 PM)

Obama spoke at the commencement at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois(my husband's alma mater) two years ago. He was amazing! Bill Clinton is speaking this year...I think we'll take a pass and stay home and work in the yard or something.

Mel, Ill (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 1:18 PM)

Am a republican but am giving Obama some serious taughts. He looks like and acts like one of the few how will bring the country together and win the world's respect on America. I like his approch and views. Good luck Mr. Obama you got my VOTE

Gregy Mc , Gresham,Oregon (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:05 PM)

The midterm elections demonstrated that people now understand the radical conservative definitions of strength, fairness, family values, and that they are beginning to reject them. Democrats have the opportunity to win back the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans. We can do this if we collectively work together to define and vocalize progressive values. We need to select a leader who not only embodies those values but can also articulate them. I believe Barack Obama is that leader. To many people, Barack Obama represents a fresh start, a new beginning for the Democratic Party. It would be foolish to not take advantage of his ability to activate people. I am one of those people who have been activated by Barack Obama’s run for the presidency. Normally cynical about politics, my past involvement began and ended at the voting booth. I’ve decided to become actively engaged for two reasons: first, I reject the values of the radical conservatives and feel a sense of urgency to repair the damage they have done to our country; second, Barack Obama provides me with hope that the Democratic party can lead this country in a new direction based on progressive values. By not electing an established career politician, we can mark a new beginning and give hope for a new direction for the country. In his stead fast opposition to the war in Iraq, Barack Obama not only demonstrates his ability to be an intelligent and pragmatic leader, he represents the progressive view of American strength as "a force for good.” In his book The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama shows an understanding of the big picture and the important role progressive values will play in shifting the conservative political tide.

Rex Brodie, Avon CT (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:47 PM)

Dear Bloggers, Barack Obama is the candidate I support. People have spoken a lot about the positive qualities he brings as the potential leader of America, and I agree with that. However, I want also to emphasize that he will be a tremendous leader for the world. His parents hailed from Kansas AND Kenya. He has personal experience of living in the third world (Indonesia). When he visited Kenya, he thrilled the Kenyan people by speaking clearly and honestly about the struggles they face. I agree with the writer above who said that a leader like Barack comes along only once a generation, if that often. I ask those who don't know him to investigate, learn about him and what he stands for. I am confident they will be impressed.

Karl, San Francisco, CA (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:23 PM)

To Objective from VT- I have my share of insults for the left but must step up as truly objective and respond to your witty comment about the donkey and the jackass. The temptation is too great to remind you that the real jackass is in the white house.

real objective, Brooklyn (Sent Wednesday, April 18, 2007 8:06 PM)

I'm a white male, ex-Republican-American because I believe it's time for a change... I hope you do too. I think if Democratic America adopts a "right-person for the right-job" attidude in 2008 we'll (hopefully) see Barack Obama as the President to rebuild a post-Iraq America. John Edwards as Vice-President and championing health-care reform, Hillary Clinton staying in the Senate where I think she'd be more effective anyway, and Al Gore officially leading us in the monumental task of repairing our global eco-system.

Michael, Bloomington IN (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:11 AM)

real objective, Brooklyn, how true. I'd laugh if it were a joke, but it's just true.

Jane, Southern Mississippi (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 12:33 AM)

The ignorance of both the conservatives and the liberals confounds me. What we need is a President who can strike a balance between the needs of the labor force and the right for capital to earn a profit. What we need is for right leaning liberals and left leaning conservatives to come together and decide what's best for our country. ALL of us have elements of liberalism AND conservatism -- so it's NOT healthy to draw a dividing line. As it stands now, BARACK OBAMA is THE most ELECTABLE candidate and clearly holds the most promise. Hillary and Giuliani have too much baggage. What's left is BARACK OBAMA. Let's give him our support!

Kenny T (Sent Thursday, April 19, 2007 10:43 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=154707