HILLARY IS "SURGING" IN MOST RECENT POLLS... COME SEE WHY, I KNOW YOU WANT TO.. HILLARYCLINTON.COM

Ha! Ha! made you look  hillaryclinton.com

edwards is the only dem that beats "all" repub candidates nation wide, clinton nor obama does

A NH endorsement for Obama:

Vote for your hopes and dreams
not for a political hack

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS/712200386/-1/OPINION

'...Vote for Obama in Democratic primary Jan. 8
December 20, 2007 6:00 AM
All elections are unique, but not all of them are historically significant. We believe that the election of 2008 will prove to be one of the most important since Franklin Roosevelt brought this country a New Deal in 1932.

The Portsmouth Herald is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama as the Democratic choice in the New Hampshire primary because we believe he has a unique character and far-reaching vision to lead this country as it faces war abroad and economic instability at home. He is the 21st century candidate the country needs.

More than any of the other Democrats in the race, we believe Obama has made the most compelling and persuasive case for his candidacy. He has talked throughout this campaign about the "urgency of the now" but has shown patience to develop both his campaign and his proposals.

It has been our privilege to host candidate forums and see candidates react spontaneously to Seacoast residents, as well as to prepared questions. We see in Obama an exceptional intellect, strength of character and raw talent. He has the best intuitive grasp of the electorate we have encountered.

His purpose is simple: He is dedicated to government that is "competent and meets the needs of people—" all people. He knows he cannot achieve his purpose without an extraordinary team, one that is "short on drama and long on substance." To date, he has surrounded himself with just such teams, and it shows in his current surprising success, as well as past legislation.

He has tapped into the hunger for change among the electorate, but has made no promises that he can't keep. He has framed the problems in the country not by blaming one person such as President Bush, but by calling for collective responsibility from Republican and Democratic politicians and voters alike. He has framed the solutions in the same manner to allow the country to move forward. We have been impressed by his campaign's tone of pragmatic hope and partisan reconciliation.

We have seen his evolution as a candidate throughout this primary season. Of all the Democratic candidates, we believe Obama has the best chance to break through the partisan gridlock that has dominated our national politics for the past 15 years.

Change has been a much used — even overused — term this election season. Obama has communicated best both the challenges and opportunities facing the country. Whoever takes the presidential reins in January 2009 will face a daunting gauntlet of tough domestic and foreign policy choices on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, health care reform, international terrorism, global climate change and restoring trust in government and our constitution.

But it is not on policy distinctions that we make this choice. All of the Democratic candidates have produced volumes of thoughtful and detailed proposals, and with most, there are only shades of differences between them.

What separates Obama is a positive vision combined with a unique temperament for leadership. He combines the best attributes of natural competence and political inspiration. He inspires trust that he will make sound judgments.

Will he make mistakes through inexperience? Of course, every leader does. But he believes — and we believe — he will learn quickly, hire competently and steadily move his administration and our nation toward the goals set out in his campaign, by putting the White House back in touch with average people.

His unique biography and political resumé are worth a close look — especially his work as a community organizer, which allowed him a ground's eye view of the everyday frustrations faced by people. The curiosity he has shown on the campaign trail inspires confidence that he is ready for the job of president — and would use the bully pulpit effectively. The face he would present to the rest of the world and to America itself would be an extraordinary statement — and possibly go far in restoring the country's tattered international reputation.

One of the main objections to an Obama candidacy and possible presidency has been the question of experience. There is no question that Obama has made a meteoric rise as a national figure and that he doesn't have extensive experience in Washington, D.C. We believe this is more asset than liability.

Though he was an Illinois state senator at the time, we believe it was no accident of political and moral happenstance that Obama opposed and correctly predicted the quagmire of the Iraq war in 2002. His plan to travel to the Middle East and give a historical speech about America's intentions and aspirations is a stroke of boldness rarely found in a politician.

All presidential choices come with risk. "Do you match up with the times?" Obama has said about an intangible ingredient necessary for the next president. We believe that Obama is like another candidate, a lightly experienced man from Illinois who burst upon the national scene in the midst of the country's greatest crisis in 1860. Abraham Lincoln matched up with his times. We believe the same of Barack Obama, and encourage voters to support him in the Democratic primary on Jan. 8....'

In a disclosure that could prove embarrassing for his sister, Anthony Rodham has stiffed his former wife, Nicole Boxer, out of $75,000 in child support, as well as $55,000 in alimony, a source close to the case said.

And this has what to do with Hillary exactly?  My father didn't pay his child support for years.  That says nothing about his parents, or the rest of his family, nor does it say anything about my stepmother.  He convinced himself that he didn't need to pay it, no matter what anyone else told him.

It's shameful.  However, the shame and the blame belongs on the deadbeat dad, not on his relatives.

What 'experience' ?
Hillary has NO FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE !!
She really wasn't Secretary of State
But, she's trying to ride that scam to the Whit House
Sierra, SF (Sent Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:15 AM)

Please cite Obama's foreign policy experience.  Please do the same for John Edwards.

NONE, van. Next question.

I have to control throwing up when I listen to the candidates, their supporters and news media mixing up religion and politics. Thanks to Huckabee in large part for bringing religion in to this campaign. Are we electing a Pope or a President? Since when did it become that being a Christian Leader or belonging to Christian faith as a primary qualification or litmus test to be the President of US? Obama should embrace his heritage rather than distancing from his ancestors being Muslims. So what if he has some Muslim heritage? Are we saying that his heritage disqualifies him to be US President? So if you are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or non-Christian you simply can't be a US President? We pride ourselves to be secular and democratic, and preach the same to other nations in the world, complains about religious intolerance, but seems to practice the same religious intolerance. We can learn a lot from a true democracy like India, where a foreign born Catholic, Sonia Gandhi, who could have become the Prime Minister, yet gave way to Dr. Man Mohan Singh, a member of another minority religion of Sick to be the leader of country where 80% or more belongs to Hindu religion. Christians comprise less than 3% and Sicks are even less. That is the way a true secular democracy should work. Shame on the candidates and the news media for highlighting religion as a major issue in this election!

I don't know why everyone is so consumed with polls that are predicting who would win in the general election which is almost a year from now.  We can't even begin to predict who is going to win Iowa and NH or who will be left standing for Tsunami Tuesday.  But somehow, we are supposed to rely upon a poll based on what people would likely do a year from now?  Many people don't even know who they are going to support in their own primary or caucus, let alone the general election.  

It's premature to place so much emphasis on the head-to-head matchups.  I think the past couple of weeks have illustrated just how quickly things can change.  On the Democratic side, Hillary is fighting to hold on in Iowa and elsewhere, while in GOP land Huckabee has come out of nowhere to steal Mitt and Rudy's thunder.  The picture now in Iowa, especially on the GOP side, has changed so much over the months.  How can anyone have any confidence in polls that attempt to predict what will happen in a year?

Richard in Idaho, I couldn't agree more.  I thought the exact same thing when I saw that headline yesterday.  The biased tactics are pathetic and at a scum sucking level, fortunately Dr. Paul is calm and cool headed about such matters and will be able to cast aside that nonsense quickly which will make the media look like fools for bringing it up in the first place.

Also, I totally agree with you about what issues people should be focusing on.  I'm not sure why people aren't more concerned about domestic topics or things that might personally impact them.  I think everybody needs to stop being scared that Osama bin Laden is going to get them and start being scared that our soldiers our dying, this country is going bankrupt and nobody can sell their damn house.

What about Ron Paul?

Why do you leave him out of the article? Why? Why?

Lucky for you the press is free to print what it likes (and ipso facto, it doesn't have to print what it doesn't like - OBVIOUSLY that is RON PAUL).

The Clintons are stepping up their attack ads. Anyone that even thinks of voting for these two cowards should have their heads examined. No link - you all have the ability to google it.

From ABC News

ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.

.
.

The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.

Van

I would like to hope that the resurgence of the experienced Senator McCain's campaign might cause Democrats to look more closely at their more experienced candidates (you knew that was coming, didn't you) but I am not sure if there is enough time for any of them to overcome the tremendous leads of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.  Senator McCain has a better shot with the Republicans, I think, because there is no really strong front runner.  Giuliani and Romney and now Huckabee all show some strength, but it doesn't seem to be as solidly set as the support for Senators Clinton and Obama. Since Senator McCain is a strong supporter of the war, I would think the Democrats will try to tie him to what they consider to be the failed policies of President Bush with respect to the war.  If he should become the Republican front runner, I would think Senator Clinton's campaign would use the experience issue to suggest that she would run better against such a seasoned Republican than would Senator Obama.  Conversely, Senator Obama would undoubtedly use the "Washington Insider-part of the problems of the past" argument agains Senator McCain.

Personally, I think Senator McCain would be the toughest candidate the Republicans could choose to run against either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama. In small towns, there are many, many voters who want a candidate who is a blend of the ideologies of both parties.  A Conservative Democrat if you will.  They are in many cases, union people who oppose abortion, oppose illegal immigrants coming to US and same sex marriage, yet they favor strong education, health care and social security initiatives.

Should make for an intersting year--a year I hope that doesn't spiral downward into a constant stream of negiatve ads. I know people say they work, but I really dislike them.  

Jerry

You see it as a two horse race on the Democratic side?

You think Edwards will finish third?  Also, what are your thoughts on the Republican side--do you think Gov Huckabee can pull off a first place finish?  And if he does, whom does he hurt the most?

"present"

Listen, I know everyone here already has their viewpoints picked out, but just consider for a moment the theme that the candidates use in their speeches:

Obama: unity, getting things done, helping the American people, the occasional jab at "poll-driven politics"

Clinton: We need to BEAT the Republicans. Us and them. We need someone who can fight THEM. Also, we need experience.

Do you hear the difference? That's the difference between the kind of American determination we know and love, and INFIGHTING. Clinton is trying to keep fighting the bitter partisan battles of the 90s and today. She's ready to take on the GOP, she says. But the way she does things, she may win the presidency but she'll have total deadlock in Congress. Think nothing's been done since the 06 elections? If Hillary wins, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Think Andrew Johnson.

We need to rise above the liberal-vs-conservative crap. That's how we got where we are: polarized elections, politics based on 50% + 1 wins, etc. It's time we stopped arguing about abortion and started working on teen pregnancy, which is the REAL problem there. It's time we stopped building fences on the border and figured out how to deal with the 11 million people here that we don't know about and can't keep track of (and can't get rid of, I might add). It's time we stopped whining about taxes and accepted the fact that living in a country as great as America means a certain amount of financial sacrifice. It's time that we stopped bickering about which wasteful programs to get rid of and got rid of ALL of them, and started fresh with an eye for teaching the man to fish instead of giving a fish to him. It's time we stopped yelling at "the other side" about what their guy did and got rid of BOTH their guy AND our guy, both of whom have been SCREWING US FOR YEARS. It's time we stopped letting rich people change whatever laws they want. It's time we stopped letting the media give us whatever scraps of information they aren't too lazy to print, and started getting information for ourselves. It's time to make America into what we were told it was back in grade school!

In a disclosure that could prove embarrassing for his sister, Anthony Rodham has stiffed his former wife, Nicole Boxer, out of $75,000 in child support, as well as $55,000 in alimony, a source close to the case said.

And this has what to do with Hillary exactly?

_______

Trailer trash is trailer-trash. It runs in the family. It's in their blood.

to those whose posts say nothing other than the bashing type of comments you so protest from the candidates.  hmm....your "information" is citing polls...hmm.  what information are you really providing here??

I love first read and MSNBC but you guys are so lost when it comes to matters of religion and faith. In making a comparison of Romney and Obama you raised the possibility that Obama may also need to give the Kennedy speech. Fair enough. You then went on to identify him as a member of the "Church of Christ"- a fine group no doubt. However, Obama is a member of the United Church or Christ which could not be much different theologically, culturally, historically or politically. The mistake is quite stunning- or would be had any taken even a survey course of the American Religious Expereince

First read also fails to mention that Hillary beats EVERY Republican candidate head to head in EVERY poll...but Obama does not.
I've heard some experts say they think the polling numbers are wrong, because the demographics don't match up with who usually votes for who, and why.
Throw shakey independents who's affections are as fickle as Jessica Simpson into the mix, and you've got yourself a horserace that probably isn't going to be over until late in the primary selection process.
Whatever happens, whoever wins, I hope The Democratic Party selects someone who will energize its' base. Not someone who appeals mostly to independents, as Obama does.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:04 AM)

-----------

Perhaps you missed the 2nd segment of the Today Show with Tim Russert who broke down the numbers and ran Hillary and Obama against the supposed front-runners on the Republican side. Hillary, while she beat all three, fell well within the margin of error in all three to either make them statistical ties or give the win to the Republican in that head-to-head. Obama, meanwhile, only had this issue with, I believe, Romney. He kicked the hell out of both Rudy and Huckabee head-to-head. The numbers you are stating are from November, if not earlier. Today, the race has a much different look and your girl is having some serious catching up to do.

Where do these poll numbers come from? How do I get in on the action? Would someone please please tell me? Because Im just lost! Im a Ron Paul supporter and for the life of me cant understand why he never makes in on MSNBC on thier so called polls. I would like an honest answer please. I love how the media tries to dictate who will be the next president and for all you that think that the only canidates are the ones you see on tv, please do your research and stop being brainwashed by the media.

It is appropriate to wonder and ask aloud how FirstRead gets from Clinton Inc. to be a cheerleader for Hillary (not Rodham) Clinton.

I really think folks who feel that Hillary is the best candidate to send up against the Republicans need to browse some conservative websites where you can plainly see they are relishing running against her. I don't care how tough she is, the nastier it gets the more they will rally to beat her.

On the Republican side there is far more nervousness about facing Obama and an open acknowledgement that his combination of intellect and charisma is a force to be reckoned with. I'm sorry but the Democratic base is not going to single handedly sweep Hillary to victory. To win an election you need to be able to swing independents and moderates and Obama is registering in every pole out there that he can do that far better than she can.  

I must say that I am an adamant supporter of Ron Paul. Although his positions may be radical to us, they seem to mimic what the founding fathers had intended. Paul offers us, the people, a chance to take this country back from corruptive Washingtonian politics.  At this point in our history, more than any other time of this 231 year old republic, this country has become too polarized, too controlled, and we have forgotten the principles that make this nation the greatest hope for mankind. Ron Paul may not be the most compelling man for the job but maybe we've forgotten that this country was never supposed to be run by the most capable ruler, rather it is a nation etched in the tradition that its greatness is "of the people, for the people, and by the people." Can we please take our country back?

"independents who change political candidates almost as many times as Imelda Marcos changes her shoes."
-----------------------------------
Oh? Not this Independent. I have supported Obama throughout and will continue to support him in a general election. Clinton? Sorry, but you have proven to me that you are underhanded and can't be trusted. If she wins the Dem nomination, I can't see myself supporting her in November.

M.G. Hollingsworth,
I'm not so sure about that. I do not believe Obama would carry The South or The Southwest.
If he were to run against Giuliani, he would lose NY, and if he were to run against Romney he would lose Massachusetts. These are critical states that a Democrat cannot lose, and still expect to win a national election.
Hillary is the only candidate who beats ALL the Republicans head to head in EVERY poll.
We need to be smart about who we pick. Right now, I fear we're beeing hoodwinked by Rush Limbaugh types, and by independents who change political candidates almost as many times as Imelda Marcos changes her shoes.
J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, December 20, 2007 10:16 AM)

---------------

Please show me a poll from a reputable (read: main stream) news agency that shows this. Please. I'm waiting with baited breath for you to show me that Rudy will clean Obama's clock. Again, just this morning, Tim Russert showed head-to-head matchups that showed the exact opposite of what you're trying to preach. It isn't working.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY "First read also fails to mention that Hillary beats EVERY Republican candidate head to head in EVERY poll...but Obama does not." ???? WRONG!

Do you read EVERY poll?  Clearly you don't. Hillary LOSES to McCain in the Rasmussen 12/6 - 12/9 poll. Obama does not lose to ANYONE. Rather, he ties Giuliana in Rasmussen 12/10 - 12/11 and ties McCain in CNN and Rasmussen.  

Please check your facts before purporting to expound the truth.

Bee and Sierra sittin in a tree, K-I-SS-I-N-G!
I am going for THE HILL just to piss you two off, thanks for making my choice easier for me, your meandering non-points are tiresome and at times childish, I also will scroll down when I see your posts, your cult of personality has been found wanting. Hero worship belongs in the comic books not politics, grow up dear ones, we got an election to win and don't need no fence sitters.

Pat Huntington NY - You are dead on.  We don't need another Christian zealot in the WH.  We've had almost 8 years of one now.  Besides, it makes me sick to listen to him go on and on about his Christianity.  I wonder what kind of upbringing he gave his children for one of them to hang a dog???!!!  Better still what kind of a person is he to try to thrwart the investigation of it??  Goes to his character I would say.

WAKE UP AMERICA. Did we elect Bush because he was a change, he was straightforward kind of guy, he made us feel connected etc...? Yes, he was all that but WHERE ARE WE NOW? Trillions of dollars in deficit, more ennemies and less allies in the world, the middle-class americans are suffering. Please
ask yourself tough questions before voting for the candidate:
1/ DO WE NEED TO LIKE THE PERSON WHO MOST CAPABLE OF CLEANING THE MESS THAT OUR NATION IS FACING NOW?
2/DO WE GET HIRED ON THE JOB BECAUSE WE'RE INSPIRATIONAL AND LIKEABLE OR WE'RE EXPERIENCED?
3/CAN WE AFFORD TO TRAIN ANOTHER PRESIDENT?

I think it will be Hillary that finishes third in Iowa, Iowa is between Edwards and Obama.  If most people in Iowa are well read and has seen everything Hillary has to offer and has gone to her website and was bored to tears by what they saw, they know that Hillary is not for them.  She offers no new ideas, trying to reshape her failed health policies of the 90's and is trying to ride the coattails of her stupid husband.  This is not a campaign about Hillary, this  is more of a campaign to get Bill back into the public eye.  They have to remember this is not the 1990's, when they suckered everybody into believing that they were the ultimate power couple and ended up in shame.
If people in Iowa are smart, they will see the crap the Clinton's are shoveling and they will make a change for the better.

Huckabee is not a good choice, more like a liberal republican.  I will never vote for anyone who tries to show he is a republican, but his policies show he is no more a tax and spend liberal then Bill Clinton.  I think he is a good man, made a mistake on letting that  guy go in Arkansas so he could kill rape and kill again.  Mitt Romney is now my choice.  A man's faith in whatever God he chooses makes no difference to me.  After 8 years of watching Bill Clinton destroy the White House with his affairs and his lies, we really don't need anymore of that.  Mitt is also a businessman who looks at the bottom line, so that will also keep our economy going strong.  For whatever reason people may think, the president does not set the agenda...Congress does that.  I think people will look at Pelosi and Reid and decide they really don't need their leadership at all and vote those two bums out.

Donna, you surely won't find a more ardent supporter of the 1st Amendment than myself.  However, given that there is a very large contingent favoring Ron Paul as evidenced by the sheer number of grass roots supporters giving of their time and money, yet they are largely ignored by the media.  We must ask why that is.  I really wonder how free is the press when obviously a large sector of the populace is not just dismissed but even denigrated.  I can only speculate; is it the political views of the large media owners,  does the political views of Ron Paul threaten the corporate establishment, is it perhaps that the differences between what is called Democrats and Republicans are now so narrow that someone with ideas outside the establishment is a threat to their hold on power?  I wish I knew, but there is little of free press, in the mainstream media at least.

Strategi Vision has Obama at 30% and Edwards/Clinton at 27%. That's a statistical dead heat folks with 14 days to go.

You got it wrong about Obama's church affiliation.  He is not a member of any of the "Churches of Christ," which are essentially fundamentalist congregations.  The United Church of Christ is the merger of Congregationalists with several other denominations to form a non-creedal progressive church that has recently endorsed same-sex marriage.  Your comment couldn't be more misleading.

Kathryn in Bham,

Your write up is silly and non-factual. I don't have to respond to this silly comment coming from Hillary Clinton's machine

AW...COME  ON!!!!!!!!!!!!

Democratic field is virtually unchanged for a month

Clinton 45%
Obama   23%
Edwards 13%

But this poll can't erase concerns about Clintons negtive ratings or her electability.


Is the media deaf, dumb and blind.

Clinton has way higher poll numbers, yet the press spins it as a negative.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

****Breaking News******

After launching so many attacks against Obama, Hillary Clinton has finally come out of the shadow to create another website of attack.

I thought hillaryis44 website is their brain child; now, she has finally made it official to go after him online. Sorry saint Hillary Clinton, independent bloggers like me are ready to counter any of your attack.

Shame on you (Hillary Clinton) for going that low. I am pretty sure the Democratic Party will be done once the Clintons collapse the party. The Clintons are selfish nut who could care less about the party.

Jerry is your problem that you have spent to much time with preists,how can hilliary talk with preists when you are so sure she is the anti christ.

Hello, Sierra, Bee, Diane, Sarah or whatever your name is.

One other point, Donna Matrix, is that the purpose of the 1st Amendment protection of speech is not to protect popular speech.  Popular speech needs no protection, but rather it is to protect unpopular speech.  So, if a large segment of Americans are ignored or denigrated because their candidate espouses freedom, Constitutional adherence, self reliance, non-interventionism; how is this free speech?

HEY, OH MY,

Don't throw stones if your candidate lives in a glass house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Hillary's brother is a deadbeat dad?

How about Obama's father, Barack Hussien Obama Sr.

    1.He was married to numerous women without
             divorcing the previous wife

    2. He fathered many illegimate children and      
             did not support them.

     3.  Obama Sr. abused his wives

     4.  Obama Sr. was a raging alcoholic

Stop throwing stones, Obama supporters  

Your live in a glass house!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HEY, OH MY,

Don't throw stones if your candidate lives in a glass house!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Hillary's brother is a deadbeat dad?

How about Obama's father, Barack Hussien Obama Sr.

    1.He was married to numerous women without
             divorcing the previous wife

    2. He fathered many illegimate children and      
             did not support them.

     3.  Obama Sr. abused his wives

     4.  Obama Sr. was a raging alcoholic

Stop throwing stones, Obama supporters  

Your live in a glass house!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From CBS News:
The latest South Carolina poll
The 'Oprah effect':

'In a reversal of many national and state polls, Obama leads Clinton among South Carolina Democratic women who are likely to vote...'


'...Poll: Huckabee Up in SC, Democrats Tied
Wednesday December 19, 2007 11:46 PM
By The Associated Press

THE RACE: The presidential race for Republicans, Democrats in South Carolina.

^---
THE NUMBERS - DEMOCRATS

Barack Obama, 35 percent
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 34 percent
John Edwards, 13 percent

^---
THE NUMBERS - REPUBLICANS

Mike Huckabee, 28 percent
Mitt Romney, 20 percent
Rudy Giuliani, 12 percent
John McCain, 11 percent
Fred Thompson, 10 percent
^---

OF INTEREST:

In a reversal of many national and state polls, Obama leads Clinton among South Carolina Democratic women who are likely to vote, while Clinton leads among men. Obama has a comfortable lead with blacks, including black women, while Clinton is well ahead among whites of both genders. Bill Clinton has a stronger impact for his wife than Oprah Winfrey does for Obama, for whom she has campaigned in the state. Among likely GOP voters, seven in 10 say they may still change their minds, including most Huckabee and Romney supporters. Huckabee's backers say they like his honesty and religious beliefs, while Romney's cite his stance on issues, honesty and experience. Giuliani and Romney are considered most electable, with only one in five naming Huckabee...'

Is this the Oprah effect ?

'...In a reversal of many national and state polls, Obama leads Clinton among South Carolina Democratic women who are likely to vote...'

Obama leads Hillary in the women's vote !!
How you like them apples ?
It's the 'Oprah effect' in action

The more Hillary and her shee--er, supporters are forced to back down and apologize for some "error in judgement" (riiiiiiiight) they've made, the higher and higher her negatives score goes. Hasn't Mark Penn figured out that they're directly proportional to one another?

She likely can't wait to get away from these early state "goody-too-shoes" and completely take the gloves off. What she likely fails to realize is that it isn't just Iowa and NH that don't want the negative campaigning, but everyone does. We've endured 8 years of the worst this country has to offer in the present administration. We want nothing to do with the negative. We want to know who will give us the best chance of cleaning things up and getting the country back to the point we want it to be at. Here's to hoping she can't see that and will be done by 2/5.

To all of the people haters:  YOu spend a lot of time and energy hating on people, defaming people and you wonder why our world is in such a mess. So much hate and disrespect spewing from these emails. Surely your hearts are corrupted. Could it be that you are in some kind of stressful mental pain from some bad situation you may or may not have experienced?.....  There is only one way out of the self-made prison that you haters have built for yourselves. Love lights the way, people! Try spreading more love than hate. More well wishes than dismay....You will feel so good inside, your hearts and minds will experience such peace...you will wonder why you wasted so much time hating.  Give love a chance you won't be sorry...A loving kind heart is a happy heart. Don't you wantto get well? Why can't we all just...Get Along?

Whomever the republican nominee is, I'm voting against him.

It's shameful.  However, the shame and the blame belongs on the deadbeat dad, not on his relatives.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Thursday, December 20, 2007 11:32 AM)


Guess he learned well from the Clinton's didn't he?

Anthony Rodham really needs to be jailed....
I hope his ex can get the arrest paperwork done today.

Carrie...

I couldn't agree more about the general election polls.  Right now, you've got candidates on each side trying to play to their party's base, because you can't win the primary without the base.  But, when you get to the general election, you'll see the 2 candidates basically sprint to the middle to try to win the independents, who usually decide the general election.  Right now, the typical independent voter (outside of NH or IA I guess) really isn't paying much attention to the race.  Once the nominees are decided, I think the general election polls will become a bit more relevant.  But a year (heck 3 weeks) is an eternity in a presidential race.

####News Alert#### new CNN poll Hillary Clinton now "leading" in Iowa. come see why..hillaryclinton.com

Fred's gonna be someone to watch in Iowa. The Club for Growth gives him pretty good marks, except for his support of McCain-Feingold. I'm working for Rudy, mainly because of his positive marks from the Club for Growth, and he has allot of states in play (i.e. he can win). But Rudy also has a few negatives which could come into play during the General, philandering not withstanding. His support of gun rights are suspect, as is his support of McCain-Feingold.

I've been talking with people at work, and Fred's name is coming up a quite a bit amongst my conservative co-workers. I could see supporting Fred if Rudy doesn't get the nomination.

My sticking point with any Republican nominee is they need to be a fiscal conservative. Rudy or Fred. Huck is another Bush on spending issues, and Huck has supported too many tax increases. Mitt is to back and forth on to many issues to be seriously considered.

I predict Fred is gonna surprise some people on the morning of Jan. 4.

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