I am hearing that when Hillary is speaking to the crowds now she is taking questions from the audience about the issues they care to know about. Obama on the other hand, is just speaking and not taking any questions.
I wonder why? Could it be that he's spouting about he is going to change things but hasn't a plan on how to do it and is afraid someone will call him out on that? He's avoiding things just like he avoided voting on certain issues.

All his claims about change are a bunch of lies. The only thing he'll change is into a new empty suit each day.

Ann: You are part of the Iowa anti-Mormon, anti-Romney campaign. Focus more on Huckabee and how liberal he really is, while running on a conservative platform, before you try to access Romney.  Equal time baby.  No more smoke and mirrors and Evangelical crapola for Huck.  

MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT 2008!!

Hay Rob in Arizona, maybe Your sources should just turn on C-SPAN, when they're showing a Barack campaign event. Record Crowds, Record Traffic Jams, Sending supporter's to alternate location's(out of the cold) & having the foresight to set up speaker's, Just so they can hear him speak about America & it's problem's.Maybe your sources need another source, because they're Not giving You Reliable info.

Edna, you have the same issue as Ann. You do not honestly evaluate Huckabee.  If you did, you would see he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.  Check it out.

csh - I can only speak for myself, but I don't believe in polls eight months before the voting starts. Now we're into the days between a caucus and a primary, so poll results are more interesting.

But while they are moving the way I like, and the timeframe makes them more relevant, I fully acknowledge polls can be wrong, even a day before the voting.

Rob - I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter because she is the best qualified candidate.  I do not support Obama because I am a longtime Hillary supporter and Obama does not have the expereince to be president.

That said, I really hope that anyone who votes against Obama does so because he lacks the strength and expereince and not because of his race.  America is (hopefully) better than that.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for a Republican in the White House.

She can't win young voters.
She can't win women voters.
She can't win Independents.
She can't win moderate Republicans.
She can't win 1st time voters/caucusers.

When are you HIllary supporters realize you will be responsible for putting Romney or Huckabee in the White House?

To Bill, NY – yes, I saw the Democratic dinner last night and Obama is all about Obama…the man’s ego is so big and is so ahead of him…very condescending and it is getting old…he goes on and on and on …all he did was talk about himself…he sounded very immature and more like a divider in the Democratic party…what kind of a uniter is he when he is dividing his own party…he has succeeded in pitting democrats against democrats, just look at the immature and insulting remarks coming from his supporters… he sounds like a Republican and is being set up by the Republicans – do you actually believe they are going to vote for him in the general? Wake up, they are stockpiling opposition research on him as I write this…of course they are holding it for the general election…how naïve can you Obama supporters be?  You truly underestimate the ruthlessness of the Republicans…they are not going to buy into Obama’s “hope”…get real…just look at how they attack each other...Obama will be putty in their hands...he has no experience in a national presidential race...

To Jim Perry – forget about hearing about issues from the MSM – they are focused on the horserace, attacks, personality and manipulating the daily story line – the MSM are ‘group think’ and united in their favorites and they are determined to knock off  Hillary and for now back Obama and John McCain, if McCain gets the nomination, they will set out to destroy Obama

…notice what Dean from Conn is saying – Obama will lead to a Republican victory, that is part of their strategy

…and for all you Obama supporters that think anyone that speaks up for Hillary is a plant – forgetaboutit! More arrogance on the part of the Obama supporters – we are strong and we are many and we will keep fighting back against the media that is stacked against her and now even some of her fellow Democrats that are seeking to destroy her…Hillary is strong and so are her supporters…we are in this to the very end and we won’t concede anything until we lose the needed delegates to become the nominee…that’s what it takes to get the nomination not a lot of bluster or egotistical me, me, me…on Feb 5 there will be 22 states voting…we have many states to go before you get too caught up in your momentum and euphoria and the ‘high’ you are on…

Flip Romney, the "varmint killer!"

Yeah, he "saw" his dad march w/MLK.  NOT!

yeah, he was endorsed by the NRA.  NOT!

Yeah, he "wept" when he heard blacks can be Mormons.

yeah, supports gay rights as a Gov. of Mass.

Yeah, he hates gays as a Prez candidate

yeah, he supports gun control as a Mass. gov.

Yeah, he supports Roe v. Wade as a Mass. gov.

yeah, he wants to now abolish it as a Prez. nominee.

Yeah, his sons support the troops by campaigning for their dad.

Yeah, raised FEES by millions in Mass.

YEAH, FLIP WILLARD ROMNEY IS A FAKE!

The following was extracted from ‘After Obama win, Clinton warns of "false hopes"’, by Claudia Parsons Fri Jan 4, which appeared on the internet:

"I'm not someone who just calls for change or demands change but actually produces change and I'm going to take that message to young people as well as people of all ages."
She said Democrats also needed a candidate able to withstand the "Republican attack machine."
"I'm tested and I'm proven. I've been through the fires. Anyone that we nominate is going to be thrown into that blazing inferno ... the general election," she said.


Yes she does "actually produce change", lots of it. Yes, back and forth, from pillar to post, political calculation to political calculation.  Now it's the young to be managed/manipulated/politically calculated, since it seems that they will now show up.

Look, why don't we just stop this nonsense. Since when did a Republican attack machine and/or a general election become more of a "blazing inferno" than being born black in America?  Now, I suspect that there are lots of people, red, yellow, black and white who were less fortunate than Barack Obama, but it was NOT Hillary Clinton.  It is baloney to proffer that Hillary Clinton is/will be, WHENEVER AND/OR WHEREVER IT'S REQUIRED, stronger and/or tougher than Barack Obama.  That rubbish just ignores the historical reality of America. We all know that the objective reality is that he could NOT be where he is, RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, without strength of character and toughness.

Oh, and to answer my own question: Since Iowa, Jan.3rd 2008, perhaps?  A request of New Hampshire: Would you undergird the historic moment for Iowa. You would be sealing your place in history also. Thanking you in advance [This is too important to worry about having egg on my face.]  

I hope Hilary supporters can deal with the upcomming reality.  After all of the work the Clintons have put into the democratic party, it would be a shame for them to prevent progress in the name of ego or stubbornness.  Obama is not running a negative race.  He is not bashing Hilary.  If he wins, which I feel seems increasingly likely, he will win on merit and enthusiasm.  Isn't that what all democrats want. Isn't that what anyone in a democracy wants?

Please don't smear success.  It's a clean win and it uplifts.  Don't be the negative force.  It is a much worse fate for the Clinton legacy than a defeat.  Be happy.  Most of us are.

simon, what are you talking about. do you read the posts. i said i didn't think chuck could be unbias towards edwards or obama and i don't think chris can be unbias towards hillary.

so i don't get where you are trying to come from and really don't care. that is why i have never made a reply to you prior to this that i remember.

i am not a chris matthews fan. he can't be impartial as i think the media should be. more than anything i was pointing out this concerning chuck todd. i think the media has a job to be unbiased in it's reporting no matter who the candidate is democrat or republican. the good and the bad should be reported. not just one or the other.

I don't get into calling others names(be it candidates or people in the room). i am the type that will support you candidate if she wins. i am an independent that knows one thing for sure, if the democratic party doesn't win this country is in trouble. i believe that.

unlike others i won't spew lies and hate because i am going to help make sure the republicans don't get in. i won't abandon your party like some say they are going to do. it is about the big picture for me.

yes, i will support hillary to if she is the nominee. so save your desire to argue with someone who desires to do so because i don't. good day to you sir.

the same-old same-old politics with the clintons ... is this what nuhampshirians want?  thank heavens no more gwb/chaney after this election.  seize this opportunity to put a smart, sincere, intelligent & energetic person in the white house this time.  hrc will hardly stand the rigors it take to run the office of potus; she is in this contest for the history books only, don't you think so?  she's on to preserve the clinton dynasry, & what is in there for you and me?  
1997 -- tigerwoods for the masters  <won>
2000 -- colin powell for potus nominee  <lost>
2008 -- obama/ronpaul ticket <win>

S - obviously not everyone who speaks up for Hillary is a plant. Far from.

But still you have to admit how it looks, when one campaign gets caught planting questions (twice). Or how it looks when one campaign has seven staffers thrown off a blog for misrepresenting themselves (sock puppeting). Or when one campaign is supported by a former governor only after his old campaign debts are paid in full. Or even when that same campaign's supporters routinely show up here, flaunting their ability to use multiple false names in an attempt to continually advertise the campaign website.

Individually each is meaningless. Together it may be meaningless, too, but surely you can see why others question authenticity here.

Just a couple nights ago, in the minutes after Obama was declared the Iowa winner, someone showed up claiming to be a Republican activist who voted for Obama to keep the candidate they were more worried about (Clinton) out of the general election. It was a ridiculous post, from the perspective that after implying he was joined by multitudes of other Republicans to pull this ruse, he then comes on First Read and admits to it?

So now we can only conclude that at least this one person is really a Clinton supporter who was pretending to be a Republican for purposes of scaring other Democrats about an Obama nomination.

I'm not saying supporters of all candidates don't do this stuff to some degree, either. But its Clinton and her supporters who seem to be the ones always getting caught.

I can't help it but laugh after seeing again the lack of authenticity of Hillary's campaign after I saw one of her campaign stops in NH. The music was "change" and the back drop of the stage was filled by awkward and confused looking 18 and 19 year olds. Hillary the POLL-itician never fails to trust the POLLs over any of her own belief.

Kay Randall,

You're wrong.  Period.  It's  a convenient excuse for Hillary supporters to say Republicans "don't want to face her and are

I'm a Republican who switched to "Undeclared" yesterday.   I will strongly consider Barack if he's the nominee.  I would NEVER consider Hillary, not because she's a woman but because she's a fraud.  Every two days, she's pandering to a new group.

If Democrats want the White House back, you need Independents and Indies will NOT vote for Hilllary.

Huckabee in 3rd - thank goodness!!  I will vote for ANY democrat before electing Huckabee to the office.  I have a lot of hope that America won't elect someone who is waving his 'Christian candidate' flag around to win votes.  Unbelievable - and very insulting to all of the other Christians running for office.  Please, let's not let a bigot in the white house - one who was a major speaker at an anti-Mormon rally and then claimed ignorance when he made anti-Mormon comments.  Hopefully now that we're out of Iowa, this religion crap will stop.  BTW, to all of you who defend Huckabee's actions at that rally as spreading the word of Christ, there's a big difference between being a keynote speaker at a pro-Baptist rally and being one at an anti-Mormon rally.  Who's next on his 'anti' hit list - Catholics?  Lutherans?  Obama supporters?

Let's not elect a bigot - especially one with an appalling lack of knowledge about foreign affairs!!!  

Mike from Dallas,  

Why so cynical about Hillary's newest incarnation?   She finally got it right.  She is indeed the "change" candidate.  Last week, she stood for one thing.  This week it's something else.  In fact, she's the embodiment of change.

Reminds me of the old joke about the weather in Seattle.  Don't like it today?  Stick around, it'll change tomorrow.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE A NEW GAME  ITS CALLED HIDE THE CIGAR

Paul M...that is from your perspective...Hillary supporters see it differently...as for plants...Obama has had plants but the media just let it go...Obama made the same kind of statement about the immigrants license...for Hillary the media decried it was the end of her campaign and went on for weeks with endless articles written...for Obama, they mentioned his 'mistake' a couple of times the next day in analysis...you don't have to believe me...try checking out Reliable Sources, Dana Millbank, the dailyhowler, Glenn Greenwood...these aren't Hillary supporters but they are honest enough to admit that the media is gunning for her or as
Dana Millbank said...he has seen the venom and it is real...the media have their knives out for Hill...his words not mine...but we can take it...we are adults...we will just keep fighting...and as for that Dean from Conn, I have already nailed him...he is no Hillary supporter and none of us are falling for it..we all need to use some common sense here...on to tonight's debate...I will say that, to me, Obama is not a uniter...he is pitting the dems against dems and boomers against youth, etc...I am just not buying it...my feeling is if you want a rock star go to a rock concert...these are serious times and we are trying to elect a democratic president to beat the likes of a mccain or whoever...obama's lack of experience will sink him...I don't have enough confidence in him in the general election...he needs more maturing....

Just read a piece on MSNBC.com that questioned the value of Iowa. Said it was "quirky."

Well, I want to point out something I read on another site.

EVERY DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE SINCE 1976 WHO HAS COMPETED IN IOWA IN A CONTESTED CAUCUS HAS WON IOWA - EXCEPT ONCE! (in 1988, Dick Gephardt won Iowa, but not the nomination)

(in 1992 Iowa was not contested because Iowa Senator Tom Harkin ran)

So the odds are with OBAMA to get the NOMINATION!!!

Time to pick a running mate for Obama:

1st choice:  Russ Feingold
2nd choice:  Jim Webb

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