Its begining to look like good things are happening in the political areanas of each party. It has been suggested that at time of great need, the american people select great leaders. I am refering to the gaining momenteum of Mr McCain and Mr Obama, two individuals that have convinced me that they are willing to serve rather than being served. Each apparently believes that it is in fact better to give than recieve. I wish each of them well, Unfortunately, I am a republican and at least on a theorectical level only allowed to vote one time.

Looks like the endorsements from the Boston Globe were very helpful and influential for both Obama and McCain. Most commentators on CSPAN, the political talk shows, etc. said last week that the Boston Globe nods were extremely reliable in predicting who would win NH. Looks like Obama and McCain may do it! I'm for Obama, and my husband is for McCain, so we're both happy!

McCain's best days are far behind... My dad was a prisoner of Vietnam, too - But he's not presidential material anymore either.  McCain is now too old and surly - let it go.

GO OBAMA!

Why is this happening?
People are realizing that Hillary Clinton's "experience" is questionable.
She was born in Illinois, a student at Wellesley(right?), has been a lawyer, a mother, a First Lady of Arkansas, A First Lady of the President, and then moved to New York to become a Senator for seven years.
Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, raised by his mother, spent some of his youth in Indonesia while his mother taught school there, moved in Chicago and became a community activist, went to Harvard and became the head of the Law Review, became a lawyer, a father, became a State Senator in Illinois for 9 years, became a US Senator for 2 years.
Barack Obama has spent more time in elected office than Hillary Clinton.  He has more national and international experience than Bill Clinton did in '92.

Many of Bill Clinton's advisors have flocked to Barack Obama.   Why?  Because they realize the differences between Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.  They realize that BARACK OBAMA is a force that can't be stopped.

Hm. Obama 14 points down from The Enabler last month, and a few points ahead of her today now. Amazing what happens when the process gets down to brass tacks and the voters start scruitinizing the candidates more closely.

Watch for her leads in California and a few other states to take similar dives as we get closer to Feb 5. The more you look, the more you realize that the future winner is the guy who doesn't look at the world in terms of "beating" other people, but in terms of winning support for his views.

I am hoping that the Bush/ Clinton regimes         are over and finally America will begin to heal and see a bright future for all, America deserves it !!!
Sen. Barack Obama for President!!!!!

Clinton is done, ha ha ha ha ha.  She is done, stick a fork in lol.

Looks like Hillary squandered that big lead.  And obama took advantage of her acting like a petulant child.
I am glad to see obama is leading

The buzz here in NH is all for McCain, nothing for Huckabee.  People are mixed about Giuliani and Romney and kind of tired of their horserace.

I knew John would pull more votes as the religious issue becomes louder, Mitt and Huck will poke at each others beliefs as if they were killing a snake in the garden, circle-poke-circle, and the people in the repub party who want to take control from the 'BASE' will go for the person that stands for more of the fiscal planks than the social ones. It will be interesting to see if Fred gains from this also. It seems NH will shift things for both parties.
Saw Dr. Paul this morning, it will be interesting to see the voting numbers of his supporters IA and in NH.
It's 50 degrees here today, snow all melted but high winds. be safe everyone, peace on earth and goodwill towards men.

New Hampshire is brushing away the flakes and getting down to solid rock, as befits 'the Granite State'. Just one flake left, and McCain will be on top.

Anything that NBC,Todd,Tucker and Hardball annouces, please take with a grain of salt. They have been hyping Obama for months. There are several polls out there that show clinton well ahead, but they do not seem to get mentioned. To you fellow democrats, you better look at the electorial college. There is no way he can win and I am a liberal living in Texas.

Barack Obama for President.

Go Barry !

Although not a Republican, I do hope McCain gets the nomination as he is the only one on that side of the aisle that has guts and integrity and does not backtrack on the issues.

Romney is just a pathological liar and flip-flopper.

Hooray for Obama!  Independents and moderate Republicans will vote for him; unlike Billary who has HUGE NEGATIVE RATINGS!

For all you undecided voters I read a really good piece by Chip Reid at the CBS blog yesterday. Check it out if you get a chance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/22/politics/fromtheroad/entry3642005.shtml

Given the close race in New Hampshire, it seems that if either Clinton or Obama wins Iowa then that person will also win New Hampshire.  

South Carolina will probably follow suit.

Personally, I don't recall any skirts or hip-hoppers at the framing of the Constitutuion, nor among the Founding Fathers. And, although they each had a mighty say, I don't recall any Preachers or     Mormons. I do recall some Military figures. John McCain fits the bill for the next President.

I guess the trends are shifting ...Keep the good news coming. I am fired up and ready to go.

Why is Huckabee not mentioned in this poll?

Mark Murray,

I know it is Sunday and I don't want to put pressure on you and you need to relax. But I will report this major breaking news for you:

DALLAS MORNING NEWS ENDORSES BARACK OBAMA

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-demprezrec_23edi.ART.State.Edition1.36adeae.html

DALLAS MORNING NEWS

We Recommend: Barack Obama

Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination


12:00 AM CST on Sunday, December 23, 2007

America is at a historic crossroads as a woman, a Hispanic and an African-American vie for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Two of those candidates, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, were finalists for our recommendation – not because of ethnicity or gender but because they most closely aligned with our positions on major domestic and international issues.

Mr. Obama is our choice because of his consistently solid judgment, poise under pressure and ability to campaign effectively without resorting to the divisive politics of the past.

Race is not an overriding factor for us. But it is undeniable that America has failed to heal its racial wounds, including here in Dallas. We need a motivated leader capable of confronting the problem, and no candidate is better equipped than Mr. Obama. His message isn't about anger and retribution. It's about moving forward.

There's been lots of noise about his lack of experience. It is a legitimate concern, considering he's a 46-year-old first-term senator. But Mr. Obama's experience in elective office matches that of Abraham Lincoln before he became president. And he has served more time on Capitol Hill than four of the past five White House occupants.

If youthful inexperience were such a liability, it has failed to resonate despite his opponents' best efforts. Mrs. Clinton, by contrast, flip-flopped over a plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Her campaign accepted donations from questionable sources. When Mr. Obama's support recently surged in early primary states, her campaign tried to smear him over drug use in his youth.

It's a tired ploy that has failed in four previous presidential elections. Bill Clinton twice won election after admitting he'd smoked (but not inhaled) marijuana. George W. Bush won despite an alcohol problem and drunken-driving conviction at age 30.

Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Obama "irresponsible" and "naive" for saying he would talk to leaders of rogue nations like Syria and Iran. Considering the current failed strategy of confrontation and diplomatic isolation, we think Mr. Obama is wise to include direct negotiations among his tools to reduce regional tensions.

Mr. Obama drew criticism for saying he would pursue terrorists, if necessary, by sending troops into Pakistan. The fact is, U.S. troops have been going into Pakistan for years in pursuit of terrorists. All Mr. Obama did, in effect, was to keep that option open for the future. To say otherwise is to declare Pakistan a sanctuary for America's enemies.

Mr. Obama, the son of a white American mother and black Kenyan father, spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country.

His life experience gives him a unique perspective and a greater ability to build diplomatic bridges.

We don't always agree with his positions, but we recognize his potential to unite disparate political factions and restore cooperation between the White House and Capitol Hill.

Americans are tired of divisive, hard-edged politics. Democrats would inspire a refreshingly new approach by choosing Mr. Obama as their 2008 candidate.

One small step closer to a Giuliani/Clinton/Romney-free general election?  

Also this!!
Sen. Barack Obama is the only Democratic presidential candidate who polled higher than all five of the top Republican contenders in its latest national survey of potential "general election matchups," Zogby International reported this morning.
Obama led:
• Rudy Giuliani, 48%-39%.
• Mike Huckabee, 47%-42%.
• Sen. John McCain, 47%-43%.
• Mitt Romney, 53%-35%.
• Fred Thompson, 52%-36%.

Edwards:
• Led Huckabee, 47%-41%.
• Led Romney, 50%-38%.
• Led Thompson, 51%-35%.
• Trailed Giuliani, 45%-44%.
• Trailed McCain, 46%-42%.

Clinton:
• Led Romney, 46%-44%.
• Led Thompson, 48%-42%.
• Trailed Giuliani, 46%-42%.
• Trailed Huckabee, 48%-43%.
• Trailed McCain, 49%-42%.
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1404
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2007/12/poll-obama-beats-any-and-all-gop-noms.php

Clinton, Romney lead pack in 'level of core opposition'
47% say they will vote against each no matter who else appears on ballot

I do not know why, until now, the Mc Cain campagn does not show any strength. He should be on top all the time. A proven leader, a solid proved proudly political and military back ground and a real honest politician.
What else do we need?

I think Obama and McCain are the best candidates the country has to offer and would love to see them both win their party's nominations.  I wish them both the best.

The media has helped Hillary sink to the point that she's in 2nd place now. Maureen Dowd and Michael Goodwin released anti-Clinton columns today. They know Obama is beatable in '08, so they are pushing for him.

You have it all wrong. Ron Paul is the name of the game!  He is going to surprise you! McCain wants to continue the war and that shows his true colors.  

Go baby Mac! And God's blessings be upon you and the land you love so much!

Democrats, look carefully at the above post from Chris, in Adaville, Iowa. These numbers say it all! Obama is the ONLY Democrat who can beat ALL of the possible Republican candidates. And Hillary has enormously high negative ratings. How much clearer does it have to be? We need a fresh start, not a recycled 1990s Clinton administration. How dreadful it would be to go backwards, when we have a golden opportunity to move forward with a new, inspirational leader who can bring this country together. Democrats, we need to nominate Barack Obama!!  

What a lovely Christmas present to see my candidate Obama leading in NH! That Boston Globe endorsement really opened people's eyes. Great news!! GO OBAMA!!!

Eugene, perhaps this data will help inform you as to the very real prospect of Obama winning in Nov. '08:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/for_or_against_presidential_candidates

"To you fellow democrats, you better look at the electorial college. There is no way he can win and I am a liberal living in Texas." - Eugene Britton

Democrats with Obama as our guy, we are destined to  lose big time in the general elections. Democrats please come to your senses. Put your bullshit idealism aside and think about how the hell are going to win with Obama? I know countless people who say emphatically they will never vote for this guy. We don't stand a chance with this guy Democrats. Selecting him, is the nail in our coffin. A vote for Obama is a vote for the death of the Democratic party. We can kiss the house, senate and Supreme Court goodbye! By the way, I am a life long Democrat who knows how to do electorial math!

Folk's here we are with a chance to get away from the politic's of personal destruction in our grasp.It's no secret, i've been sold on Barack since hearing him speak several month's ago. The Man just seemed to give me Hope, that soon America would be back on track.The voter's of Iowa will soon let us know how they think.
   All of us that vote, should'nt forget that Clinton & Edwards both voted to send us to War with a Soverign Country that had nothing to do with 911 as some would have ya to beleive. John Edwards is a good man, however i don't think he's the Person we need to move us forward as a Country. Hillary Clinton, has shown all of us that have watched her campaign, that she does'nt care how she gets it, just as long as she is POTUS.That my friends is'nt Leadership.Barack has had a Positive message from the beginning & has stayed on message even tho his character has been questioned to the point, that most of us would've already buckled under. I'm sure in the last several days before Iowa cauces's, his Character will again be tested to the fullest.
    Do we want the same ole kinda Politics, or do we want someone with a new vision that this country of our so desparetly needs? It is time to Turn The Page!

" DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER"


Barack Obama for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!

ah, the boston globe in New Hampshire is what the LA TImes is in Orange county...
it's considered garbage except for the sports page

Only a fool would deny the fact that Obama is gaining ground big time on the national front. I think it's more Clinton withdrawl than anything else. So much for the media hinging on the Bill & Hill Show in 2008.

PROUD to support Sen. McCain.  LET US WIN!

Obama is an exiting candidate and as far as I can tell he is an honest man too.  However his lack of experience doesn't sit well with this voter.  Earlyer this fall during a Q&A, he suggested that as the President of the United States, he would meet with Ahmadinejad.  So I ask myself, what type of message are we sending to the world if one day President Obama sat down with this person, who believes there are no gays among the 70 Million population of Iran; that Holocaust is a myth and it never took place; that there is no such religion as Bahai even though it has about 300 thousands followers in Iran!?!

I thought Bill Clinton did a superb job as president, and I'm confident his wife will do an outstanding job leading America -- making even greater progress on the important issues.  She has intelligence, integrity, and compassion ... and she has Bill!

Go Hillary 2008!

McCain, Romney, locked in a statistical tie?

If voters will look at both records, there is only one who can win This tie-up.

Romney's record as governor of Massachusetts is remarkably poor considering how he touts His governance of 'his' state.

While Romney was gov. of MA:

Massachusetts was 3RD from Bottom in Creating New Jobs, would've been 2ND from bottom but Katrina destroyed Louisiana--even more southern governors did better bringing jobs to their states).

Massachusetts was ONLY STATE to post ZERO GAIN in Employeed Residents.

Massachusetts' Median Home Price ROSE 95!! (40% for the nation during same time).

222,000 More residents Moved OUT of Massachusetts than moved into the state, this number of high OUT-migration is ONLY thing that kept MA's unemployment rates down(Just the tip of the ice-burg. Center for Market Studies, Northwestern University, Boston Globe, 07/29/07).

Where will Americans move? Romney can always send his family to live with his family in MEXICO. Surprisingly (?) Romney NEVER mentions his family in Mexico when discussing the immigration/Mexico problem. Wikipedia lists MITT ROMNEY as one of the descendants of the LDS-Mormon settlers of The Casas Grandes Valley in Mexico who HAS ATTAINED PROMINENCE IN BOTH COUNTRIES [MEXICO--AND--U.S.A.]. Why hasn't Romney mentioned this important fact as he campaigns to be PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES??? Between oaths of obedience to LDS prophet/president (which Romney refuses to discuss) AND Romney's ATTAINED PROMINENCE IN MEXICO (which Romney hasn't discussed), and his financial ties with foreign interests, just Where Will Romney's loyalties rest?

Thousands of Americans lose their jobs while Romney makes his Millions--in forced buy-outs of American companies. Thousands more Americans are forced to take cuts in pay when new owners take over, through Romney's forced buy-outs.

Be sure to take a look at:
http://www.massresistance.org
"The Romney Deception"
BEFORE Voting Romney.
(this is a Conservative group in Massachusetts)

Don't forget. Before announcing his candidacy, Romney 'contributed' $Hundreds of $Thousands of Dollars to Major Conservative Groups. These same groups, who Criticized Romney BEFORE his 'donations,' have--SINCE receiving Romney's money, supplied public signs of support. I have lost much respect for these groups, which include:

Herigage Foundation
Federalist Society
Massachusetts Citizens For Life
National Review Institute
Family Institute, associated with
Family Research Council and
Focus on the Family

Romney has woven their names throughout his campaign speeches and debates.

Yet Romney could only afford less-than-$300.00 worth of groceries to feed the Hungry--and made a TV campaign commercial out of that.

Romney has been nervous, wound tight, easily angered, misleading, un-forthright with voters. The man is a power-climber, NOT ready or qualified to lead our nation--especially at a time when our nation is already at war with 'ideals.' Romney continually tells America he is proud of his religion and will not distance himself from his religion. History proves LDS-Mormons are the ONLY CHURCH organization in America to ever raise up (LDS-Mormon) militias and armies to fight AGAINST AMERICANS, on numerous occasions, in sworn obedience to their prophet/president(the same obedience Romney has sworn). And Romney says he is "proud" of this? If the LDS prophet/president calls for LDS Doctrine and Covenant 105:23-32 to come forward and fulfill their mission--Romney would be proud of this? wouldn't distance himself from this?? If Romney's prophet/president calls for the fulfillment of Journal of Discourses,vol3, p.226: The time has come--for all who are not heartily for LDS God (Moses 6:57, 7:35,[LDS]Pearl of Great Price) TO BE HEWN DOWN, Romney will be Proud of this? will Not Distance himself from this?  

This election is one of the most important in decades and will set the course for 'The America' our grandchildren will inherit. Research the candidates. Vote wisely.

NO more Clinton dynasty and corrupted Health Industry.

!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!

Meltdown of the Clinton Campaign news at 11:00 January 3rd from Iowa and January 8th for NH.

Thank you, mike, dallas,TX

Great editorial by the Dallas Morning News

Given what they said, I don't understand why Hillary was one of their finalists.

We can only hope that iowa gives Obama a victory
I think that will give him mommentum going into NH and hopefully build a tidal wave in SC.

I suspect, that between NH and SC, Hillary will take the Nevada caucus. It seems like a complicated process that hasn't been done in Nevada before.
There don't seem to be many polls of Nevada.
I'm not sure why.

Hopefully, after victories in Iowa and NH, the Super Tuesday state polls will start to move in Obama's direction.

It's an exciting election season.
Here's to a happy ending....

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year !!


PS
Obama SHOULD NOT consider Hillary as a VP if he wins
It should be Edwards to show a commitment to reform

He may feel a need to include an 'experienced' insider to balance the ticket.
In that case Biden would seem logical.
BUT, Dodd has shown me some good stands (though he seems a little stodgy)

Ron Paul -- Enough said...

As an Independent, I believe that an Obama vs MCain matchup would be the best possible matchup for this country. Both look to be the most trustworty candidates in their respective parties and seem to have the ability to think outside of the boundries set by their respective party platforms. An Obama/McCain matchup would mean the end (at least temporarily)of politics as usual.

John McCain has a compelling story of millitary service to this country and he seems like he has forged some integrity over the years (after the Keating Five scandal in the eighties).  However this had been compromised over the course of 2007 with his ingenuous cozying to the religious right, still an unrequited love, and his embracing of his political nemesis, GWB, in order to obtain his endorsement as the heir apparent for the Republican nomination; another failed effort.

However, all that aside, I must register my major complaint with John McCain (and with that, the complicit guilt of the still lazy MSM) and that concerns the assertion that the reduction in violence in Iraq is more than minimally due to the idiotic troop surge which John McCain fully supports (like the war itself) if not claim partial authorship.

Think about it.  Why would increasing the number of combat troops by 15% (20K), in a country the size of California result in a successful qwelling of violence nationwide.  The police force of NYC alone is 40K.  Our troops have fought bravely before the surge as well as now but the difference is that now the Sunni sheikhs of Al Anbar have decided to pull their support from what was a growing and malignant Al Qaeda influence, a group that they originally thought they could use against American forces (who ousted their beloved Saddam from power) and the U.S. puppet Shia (whom the arrogant Sunni consider inferior) government (not as manipulable as we thought) who now dominate them politically, much to their chagrin.  

Instead of using Al Qaeda (their religious cousins) as a group of military surrogates, the Sunni found that they could not control their hired guns. Al Qaeda, whose religious fanatacism was more oppressive than any Shia government which was trying to extract revenge for twenty-five years of Sunni domination and cruelty was now inflicting more violence on the Sunni than the Shia themselves.

So there was a great shift of allegiances in the west and in the neighborhoods in Bagdad (and certainly there was increased patrolling by the troops of the surge) that led to a new power equation in Iraq.  The Sunni now turned to their hated American occupiers as protectors against Al Qaeda and helped the Americans route out the bastards.  Muhktar al Sadr, consolidated his power around the Basra area and emerged as the dominant Shia force in the South.  Iran has decided to halt some of its Shia based terrorism and now waits for the next opportunity for unrest.

And so a Balkanized house of cards sits in place, in the eye of a tumultuous set of circumstances.  There is no hope for political consolidation as these populations have generations of rivalry between them that will not easily be swept under a rug.  Things are at an impasse but this will not last long.

I bring this up for a number of reasons:

1) John McCain and the press have falsely endorsed Bush's claim that the surge is the cause for the reduction in the levels of violence seen in 2006.  And obviously, although a factor, it is not a major one.  This must be assessed correctly because it we were to believe Bush, McCain and the press this might lead us to believe that we should stay longer and continue combat operations.  Instead, this lull in violence actually provides an opportunity for us to extract our troops at a point in time that affords our troops the greatest safety.  If we wait this window of opportunity may close.  We have accomplished nothing, a) a new dictatorship will replace Sadam's old one b) the warring Shia and Sunni will still be at war c) Al Qaeda, who were not in Iraq before 2005 have again lost their opportunity for a foothold because they overplayed their hand.

If we leave we also may remove the inflammatory presence that we provide because an invading and occupying armed force is never accepted by either side.

2) I refuse to allow GWB to claim victory in a situation that burned itself out (at least temporarily) because of internal consequences and not because of any actions of his.  This still remains the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history and I for one will fight any attempts at revisionist history.

3) I want to hold all members of Congress, who supported this incursion (especially those who voted without reading the NIE) including HRC, to be held accountable and I feel that election to higher office, of any of these scoundrels who refuse to recognize this fiasco for what it is, would be a travesty for this nation.

Barack Obama, 'the naive' Senator from Illinois recognized this disaster as such in 2002 and was quite precise in predicting the consequences of this folly.  I think people who claim experience and ability to 'lead on day one' and yet have continued to support this president in his inane foreign policy have no rights to those claims.  The proof is in the Christmas pudding.  Dig in folks and cast away the propaganda that is clouding your judgment.  Experience isn't worth the paper upon which the resume' is written, if nothing is learned from the experience.
Obama '08  (and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, also, Happy Hannukah and Merry Kwanza)

Once the Iowa caucuses are over and Obama wins, the Edwards supporters will come to the realisation that that Edwards can't win and 75% will switch to Obama.  This avalanche of voters combined with the 25% of people, who are supporting Hillary based on name recognition, that will switch to Obama, will erase Hillary's lead and lift Obama over the top nationally.

A vote for mccain would be a vote for the same as we have had for the past 7 miserable years with the moron in chief.

I've been voting for the dems for the past 20 years because of the repubs anti environmental policy.

But why do all the dems want to raise taxes? Like the government doesn't have enough money?

Cost of living will go up for everyone.

I'm not in the upper bracket but lets say my doctor gets hit up with a tax hike, guess who will pay more for a visit?

I think more people are turned off by Hillary's plan to increase public handouts. I haven't heard any specifics yet, except raise taxes.

Obama and Edwards are no different.

That's why Kery lost last time, he wanted to raise taxes. And the dems will probably lose again by a narrow margin.

 

If the electoral college is not going to work-out for Obama, how is it going to work-out for any other Democrat.  Please explain that.

If there are inherant biases on the college wouldn't a well organized campaign address that issue immediatley after obtaining the party's nomination?

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