So funny how so many posters on here try to use fear to influence people's vote. It's not working folks. It only convinces me that you don't have much to say about your own candidate.

Nashville_fan (Sent Tuesday, January 01, 2008 6:26 PM)

Does that hold true for those who claim that electing Hillary would send our country directly to Hell?

I hate to burst the bubble of those who dream of a president working hand in hand with the republicans and the sun is shineing all day long.  Give me a break.  What we need is not a kinder gentler democrat ( that didnt work last time with Kerry ), what we need is a kick but get it done, tested and no hold barred leader.  Her name is Hillary clinton.  All other votes for democratic nominees is a vote for the republican party.  Wake up from your slumber democrats and start thinking with your heads.  Time is running out.  A democratic president is going to have to fight for every inch of legislation they pass.  Do you want "Johnny come lately " Obama or "Mean Jo Green" Edwards?  I think I'll settle for hard working and all ready been through the ringer Clinton.  

Carrie, Eastern Iowa - I heard, on CSPAN, the woman who conducted the poll for the Des Moines Register, both this year, and in 2004. Her name is Anne Seltzer and apparently she and her polling company are highly, highly respected in political circles. I didn't catch every word of the interview (have children who were in and out, talking!), but I did hear her say that they had very reliable lists of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents whom they polled. If, say, an Independent said they were very likely to caucus for Obama - or Edwards - or whomever they chose - that person would be counted as that person's supporter. She said the demograhics were 35-54 year olds were big Obama supporters, as were women under 35.(didn't hear about men<35!) Women over 55 favored Hillary and men over 55 preferred Edwards. She gave a number as to how many Independents caucused in 2004 - (this is when my children were talking!)- but I think she said 45%. (but don't hold me to that!) She said enthusiasm was very, very high this year among Democrats and Independents - not as much for Republicans. She said there were going to be a very high number of first time caucus goers for all three Democratic candidates. I will say this - she seemed extremely confident in her numbers! She said they even polled using some cell phones where they were able to track down college students to see if they would be back in time to caucus. She said one thing that really struck me - that they looked deep inside the numbers to see if there was any way that either Hillary or Edwards could beat Obama - and they didn't really see any realistic way that that could happen. I'm an Obama supporter, so naturally, I'm very, very pleased with these results! The good news is that we'll all know for sure in about 48+ hours!!

Dreaming and hopeing is nice.  The only problem with dreams is that sooner or later you wake up.  I am a realist.  This world and our country is a crazy mixed up mess.  I dont want to wake up from the dream to find an even bigger mess.  I want my president to be a work horse grounded in reality with no freshman angst.  We need a leader who can start makeing the changes needed right off and not spend the first 6 months getting aquainted with Washington and building relationships.  I want a lot, but this election is important and baggage and all Hillary Clinton is the most qualified and best suited to send the republicans packing.  Come on America, get your heads out of the sand and vote in the here and now, not in never never land.

Just to avoid the title of plagiarist I have to clarify my predictions concerning the final numbers in the Iowa, NH and SC primaries.  The actual final numbers (as accurate or inaccurate as they may be) are my own predictions but in re-reading the post, I realized that I didn't give proper credit for the first part of my post.  It was actually a paraphrasing of a commentary that I had heard on one of the talking head shows; I don't remember from whom it originated.  I strongly agreed with the analysis but didn't mean to take it as my own.  Sorry, for any misconception that I may have allowed to occur.  I guess that it was just too easy for me to adopt some pearl that I had heard.  Mea culpa.

She said one thing that really struck me - that they looked deep inside the numbers to see if there was any way that either Hillary or Edwards could beat Obama - and they didn't really see any realistic way that that could happen.  
Sarah, Vienna, VA (Sent Tuesday, January 01, 2008 8:12 PM)

I'm not saying the poll is unreliable - it may very well be.  But as someone who actually lives in Iowa, I think it is incredibly short-sighted for ANYONE to say there is "no way" for Edwards or Clinton (or anyone else for that matter) to win.  There are still a lot of undecided people, even in that DMR poll.  

No one polled me, either.  Nor did they poll anyone in my family.  A poll shows trends - nothing more, nothing less.  The trend definitely favors Obama, but it is by no means a sure thing for anyone at this point.

I certainly hope New Hampshire Democrats have come to their senses. As for polls in Iowa. Clinton is ahead in 4 of the 5 most recent ones. Whatever happens in Iowa I certainly hope NH puts the brakes on the Obama runaway train...wreck...

Hillary is not as eloquent a speaker as Obama (prepared speeches, that is). Certainly, she's not as fiery as John Edwards. Frankly, I can't remember when eloquence or fire ever got anything really accomplished. Pragmatism is the way to go, and the only really pragmatic candidate is Hillary. She'll get things done, in an organized and methodical fashion (which is really what this country needs after the disorganization and mismanagement of the Bush administration).

Personally, I think Obama is an interesting candidate for a lot of people NOT because of his "change" mantra, but rather because Bush is so incredibly inarticulate whereas Obama is so articulate (again, especially with his canned speeches). I think we in America are longing to hear a thoughtful and articulate leader. Folks, Obama gives a good speech, but Hillary gives a good one as well. She is articulate and smart. She will inspire as does Obama, maybe not with rhetoric, but with actions. Just imagine our strong, female president standing up to the likes of world-wide dictators, standing up to the UN, standing up to a wayside Congress. If you are looking for inspiration, she'll give it. To this date in the campaign, the BEST speech I have heard from any candidate has been Hillary's "Invisible" speech (Obama's JJ Diner speech was a close second). Give the lady a chance....she'll make us proud, again.

MSNBC is OVERTLY biased against Hillary Clinton and I'll wager Chris Matthews and the Hardball crowd won't be talking about a Clinton surge in New Hampshire however they will beat the RIGGED Des Moines Register poll to death. (overemphasizes Independents).  GO HILLARY!!!

To all those who say Obama is just a good talker, with no depth, no real plans... you haven't been listening.  You're probably like those post-debate analyst who talk about "how" the candidates performed rather than "what" they said.  

Hillary is by far the toughest, most articulate, most capable candidate on either side.  It is just a matter of time; and I do anticipate a landslide in November.
Go Hill!
Clinton/Bayh 2008

I am speaking as an external observer. I live in Ireland where media coverage is unbiased towards any candidates. I have spent many years in america and have seen interest groups and vested interests manipulate your country especially middle america. The bush administration should never have been elected (a monkey for vested interest groups) and has made a mockery of your nation internationally. Your domestic and international policy needs to be addressed. The best candidate you have for election undoubtedly is Hillary Clinton. Her reputation internationally is exceptional both as senator and when first lady. As Obama would like you to believe she visited countries for tea with leaders which was not the case. Bill and Hillary were instrumental parts in the peace talks in Northern Ireland for one and used diplomacy as the key to solving conflict situations internationally where possible. She was more qualified to run for office than Bill and while you may not agree that she is charismatic - she is the best leader to improve social change in the states and international relations. I sincerely hope you back Hillary. She is the only candidate with the ability to adopt change, lead and stabilise global security - by putting a respectable, articulate and well regarded figure in charge of your nation and restore the damage done by the bush administration.

What I seem to be noticing the more I look into the political ideals of people is they really dont look into the candidates that much.  I mean some come up with great ideas, but ideas (if implimented) cost money, and while many, infact almost all, candidates have tons of "ideas" and ways to spend your money none of them are coming up with ways to save your money.  Our recent budget is 2.87 trillion dollars (please correct me as I may be slightly off).  That comes to about $90,000 spent every second.  but we dont pull in that much in taxes. So a tax hike is inevetible.  So while every candidate say "I will produce change" only one I have heard and researched has outlined a way to save money, Ron Paul.  Now I am not trying to come across as one of the "Ron Paul Fanatics", but the man has some really legitimate points.  He is the only one really giving an honest economic picture.  I just heard Edwards speech last night after the Iowa caucus say we are the richest country in the world, and practically every candidate would agree...especially democrats.  Truth be told, we are technically the poorest.  We have the highest national debt of all countries and while it may seem  that we have alot the cast majority of people in America carry more debt than assests.  But Americans dont want to hear the truth.  The want to be spoon-fed lies of "everything is ok".  Wake up please, it is my generation that is going to suffer an American economic downfall.  We need to get or budget underwraps.  We need to stop more than just the Iraq war, we need to stop our "police the world" mentality.  We didnt do if for decades and our lifestyle was never compromised.  So seriously look into your candidates true platform...view their voting record.  I have on every candidate and quite honestly have found a firm backing in Ron Paul.  You say he cant win...I say he can if enough people decide to listen. (And for the record for your who say he is an isolationist, learn to read and comprehend...that arguement is really childish.  Isolationism is when you refrain from the global community at large...he wants a non-intervention policy...aka dont send our military into comflicts unless they did something to directly provoke us (like bombing pearl harbor)...he follows the ideal of Thomas Jefferson "Make allies with no one, trade partners with all."

Please RESEARCH all candidates before you pick, dont live in ignorance.  God Bless.  Go Ron Paul.
Thank you

Experience, experience, experience...give me a break! Bush had experience, but not common sense and look at where that has gotten us! The lying moron made a international fool out of us. Hillary needs to stop flip flopping her stance, make up your mind and stop catering to the agenda of those you are speaking to at that time! As far as Guiliani goes, don't get me started. I was totally done with him when I found out he married his own cousin...how disgusting!

Obama/Edwards '08

I don't think Clinton ever had a double digit lead in Iowa. It was pretty much always within the margin of error.

LATINOS FOR OBAMA '08

When voting i look at the resume of the candidates because President of USA is a Job people a huge JOB. i look for people who have been there, one needs some Experience to take a responsible action, that’s why we train navy seals with stimulated storms!

I love Hardball and watch everyday, I think Chris is the most fare minded anchor on TV, except when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Why is Chris Matthews so biased against Clinton. I'm watching the New Hampshire returns and Nora clearly reported that the exit polls showed over 50% of the voters made up there minds before Iowa. So why does he keep saying Clinton got a sympathy vote from showing her emotions, which took place well afterwards.

By the way, when she got emotional it was because she was talking about her love of country and wanting to help the country. Chris is reporting that she broke up because she lost Iowa. Chris please set your bias on the shelf and try to be objective.

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