Thompson in 4th place after concentrating on SC!  For shame, Thompson.  You're not much of a Republican Actor are you?  I'm reconsidering my support!

looking at the internal of the poll, it seems Huckabee stands a better chance than Mcain. More chaos in the GOP field but Fred will have to drop out after Sc.


In the democratic side, it's looking good for Obama. Yet, it's too early to know what's going to happen with Edwards playing the king-maker. if John sticks through the SC primary, Obama stands a good chance.

Looks like the rankings will need to reflect the nosedive of Giuliani...

http://truthalert.net/Republican%20Presidential%20Candidate%20Rankings.htm

Huckabee just told a crowd in South Carolina that if the government tells them they can't display the Confederate flag on public grounds, that he would shove the poll where the sun don't shine.

On the other hand, he wants to amend the Constitution to adhere to the Bible. He also wants to tell people they can't get married because they are gay.

Uh, Mike, what about those who aren't Christians? Are you shoving the flag poll up their hiney too?

Here's my suggestion: If you seriously think you have a chance to win in November after statements like these, you might need a couple whacks over the head with that poll until you are unconcious so we don't have to listen to this garbage anymore.

Huckabee now has momentum going into Saturday's primary.  With a field this wide open, Republican voters can feel free to vote with their heart and pick the person they feel best about.  Even if Huckabee doesn't eventually secure the nomination and the convention ends up brokered, the more delegates he'll bring to the table, the better for evangelicals and southerners.  I think people are starting to think along this line instead of trying to just pick the winner and vote for the person who won the last state.

Obama has a nine point lead ... deja vu all over again!

Good for Obama, but can these polls be trusted?? We shall soon see...how come not too many polls for Nevada?

OK, you fanatic Obama supporters... before you annoint him as the next Messiah, check out Newsweek's latest article pointing out how HE uses dirty campaign tactics in his TV ads in Nevada.  Oh, my God!!!  Obama acting like a Chicago politician?????  I am so SHOCKED!!!!!  Here's the headline and the link to the article in Newsweek, for you Obama supporters who truly care about the truth as much as you say you do:

Obama's Creative Clippings

The ad may be new, but we've seen this tactic, from this candidate, before.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/94900/page/1

Tell the undecides to go Obama. Hillary has no chance in a general election.

I don't want to make the judgment that Southern Democrats will still choose their candidate based on race, but with 67% of whites supporting Clinton and Edwards against Obama's 20%, there is at least some evidence that race may still matter.  Wake up, S.C.  It's 2008!

MCCAIN  DID NOT SUPPORT THE BUSH TAX CUT, HAS A TROPHY WIFE,NOT CLEAR ON PRO LIFE, WOULD NOT SUPPORTING ILLEGALS, HIS VIETNAM SERVICE IS QUESTIONED, WHAT DOES HE OFFER, AND FRED THOMPSON, ARE PEOPLE CRAZY, HE NEVER PASSED ANYTHING BUT GAS, AND BRAGS ABOUT HIS TROPHY WIFE WHO WAS NO MORE THAN A GROUPIE OR GOLD DIGGER   EVEN RPN PAUL LOOKS BETTER THAN THESE TWO, AND RUDY RUNNING FOR  GOVERNOR OF FLA.  FOR ME  HUCKABEE OR ROMMNEY

GO, OBAMA, GO!  We believe in you!

MCCAIN  DID NOT SUPPORT THE BUSH TAX CUT, HAS A TROPHY WIFE,NOT CLEAR ON PRO LIFE, WOULD NOT SUPPORT deporting ILLEGALS, HIS VIETNAM SERVICE IS QUESTIONED, WHAT DOES HE OFFER, AND FRED THOMPSON, ARE PEOPLE CRAZY, HE NEVER PASSED ANYTHING BUT GAS, AND BRAGS ABOUT HIS TROPHY WIFE WHO WAS NO MORE THAN A GROUPIE OR GOLD DIGGER   EVEN RoN PAUL LOOKS BETTER THAN THESE TWO, AND RUDY RUNNING FOR  GOVERNOR OF FLA.  FOR ME  HUCKABEE OR ROMMNEY

I wonder if First Read will report on the Newsweek piece on Obama's misleading ads in which he runs flattering quotes across the screen, citing various publications.  The problem?  The publications did not say what he says and, worse than that, some of the articles he cites actually are opposed to plans that he suggests those articles support.   It's very enlightening.  

http://www.newsweek.com/id/94900

Oh and P.S.  Here we go with the polls again. It took the MSM media all of a few days to forget the lesson of the NH primary.  

IT'S OVER FOR FRED THOMPSON.

Jeri has potential-as FOX SUPPORTS.

GO MIT ROMNEY!!!

THE POPE AND THE JEWS can agree on you-at least.

It is a travesty that Hillary Clinton has dishonestly convinced voters that she has more experience than Obama. Technically, this is false: Obama has served more years in elected office than Hillary, specifically, 8 years in the Illinois Senate (which follows nearly identical rules and procedures as the U.S. Senate), and 3 years in the U.S. Senate for a total of 11 years. Moreover, Obama spent many years as a grassroots organizer on the poverty ravaged streets of south Chicago working for school reform and environmental protection among other key issues, was a civil rights lawyer, and a law professor at the University of Chicago which is one of the top law schools in the world. Clinton, on the other hand has served only one term plus a year in her second term-a total of 7 years in elected office. Being first lady does not count the same as being elected or appointed. There is no accountability-- no one knows what she did or didn't do, as she wasn't official given she was not elected or appointed. There is no record. Thus far, she has taken the liberty of cherry picking the good things she did, but this is problematic as we don't know the mistakes she made--again, because she wasn't elected. It is undemocratic for her to claim she is fit to be president for her role in a non-elected, non appointed position. Now, she has switched to saying she has "35 years of experience". The commencement address at Wellsley apparently is part of this "experience" which makes ready to be president. If she now wants to count non-political experience, then Obama can best her in this area as well. Please see the breakdown below. At some point, the media must sort this distortion out, by simply laying out the resumes of the candidates:

Obama served 8 years in State government (Illinois state Senator), and been in the U.S. Senate for 3 years.

Hillary Clinton has served 7 years in the U.S Senate, and has no prior experience in elected office.

Bill Clinton served in State Government for 10 years (Arkansas Governor), and served ZERO years in national government.
John Edwards served 6 years in the U.S Senate, and has no other experience in elected office.

Synopsis

Numerically, Bill Clinton had less experience in government than Obama. More importantly, Bill Clinton had ZERO foreign policy experience. John Edwards has less experience in elected office than any candidate running for president. The key point is that Obama's 8 years in the Illinois Senate have been completely overlooked, and warrant equal comparison to Bill Clinton’s only experience before he became president, which was also in state government for a very small/insignificant state with no major cities (Arkansas).
Hillary Clinton has consistently referred to her experience as first lady. Two problems: 1.) she was not an elected official accountable to voters, and for those of us that believe in democratically elected leaders, her claims of being "deeply involved and hands on" during Bill Clinton's administration should be viewed as problematic. The inherent problems related to not being an elected official but claiming to be deeply involved in Bill Clinton's administration is illustrated through the lack of paper trail detailing exactly what she did and in what areas/issues during his 8 years in office.2.) The evidence which has been pieced together through testimony of former Clinton officials shows that Hillary has greatly exaggerated her involvement in policymaking. The following article details the nature of Clinton’s experience as first lady:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22395503/     Overall, it is unprecedented for a candidate to claim they have experience at the highest level of government despite not being an elected or appointed official (aside from her healthcare failure in which she was appointed to a commission). Being a First lady, no matter how politically active, is not the same as being Secretary of State or National Security Advisor. For Clinton to portray her time as first lady as equivalent to being an official in the white house is not just a stretch, it’s disingenuous and undemocratic. Laura Bush for Pres?
Obama is the most well rounded of all candidates. Aside from his 11 years serving in legislatures, for many years he was a community organizer in Harlem and South Chicago (actually working with real people at a grassroots level, something Hillary has never done), a civil rights lawyer, and a law professor at the University of Chicago law school. Compare Obama’s current experience (age 46) to Bill Clinton’s when he first ran in 1992 (age 42), in which he was accused of not having enough experience, given that he had only served as governor of a tiny state and had no foreign policy experience. Clinton argued that a candidate can “have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience. Obama has also used Clinton’s quote from 1992: “The people of America recognize that there are other measures of leadership and there are other measures of experience than simply having been in Washington.  And so my experience is rooted in the real lives of real people, and I will bring real results if Americans have courage to change.”
Experience doesn’t equal good judgment—Cheney and Rumsfeld each had 35 years of “experience” in Washington, and this hasn’t led to good judgment.
Among all the major candidates, who got the single most important foreign policy decision of the last 30 years right? Obama.

Anybody, except Huckleberry, in the Oval office but Bush. Now that our plastic economy has to pay the bill
we are going into a major recession. This airhead "W"
will leave a big stinky mess when he leaves just like every job he has done in his entire life. Never another Bush! Our worst president ever!

Republican South Carolina Primary - Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Republican South Carolina Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1553


.

President Barack Obama !!! CHANGE !!Honesty !!Truth !!!
SEND SLICK WILLY AND VENOMOUS HILLARY BACK TO ARKANSAS !!!

I would take misleading ads from Obama over outright lies from 'Billary' and the Clinton "Machine" any day of the week.

I can't wait to caucus for Obama on super tuesday!  I've never been this excited to vote in my life!!!

Just what we need, another poll!
Is it just me or does anyone else worry
that these polls influence voters way too much;
just as exit polling in elections influences
voter turnout, negatively on the west coast?
Boy a 9 point Obama lead is probably the kiss of
death for him. Isn't that just about what
everyone was saying his lead was up until 5:30PM
on the day of the New Hampshire primary?
Perhaps politics in this country would be better served if you in the media just kept your mouths
shut until after the fact? I know your ego's and
your livelihoods would take a big hit; but what
do you care?

AH whats with these POLLS... Can we really trust them? Especially after N.H.?

Non-Christians should leave this country right away.  There is no use for you here.  

Dear Friends:
Hope the earth quake does not happen as Roosevelt, Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Reagan, Kennedy,
Lincoln are turning over in their graves. Huckabee
seperation of religion and government a fine line.
creationism and evolution are they to be taught together apply these to stem cell reseach happenings in the news.    

Huckabee meant that the confederate flag, for most in the south, isnt meant hatefully or racially, but rather a symbol of southern heritage. Also, most republicans do not agree in gay marriage, definately most in the south. Its not necessarily amending the constitution to reflect the bible, rather amending the constitution to reflect what a majority of Americans want going on in their country. Unfortunately for you, a majority call themselves Christians and live by the Bible. Living in a democracy where majority rules and a majority say they obey scripture means this majority feels that gay marriage should not be allowed. Back to the flag point, you have Americans burning the flag all over the US in protest, you would probably say well thats their first amendment right, shouldnt it then be okay for a southerner to display the confederate flag, especially when no hate or racism is tied to it? That is a HUGE misconception today that this flag represents bad things, i am a southerner, i personally dont fly that flag, but i dont believe the government should swoop down and tell others not to fly the flag especially when nothing bad is meant by it, when they wont say anything about Ol Glory burners who do mean offense in what they do. Sounds like a double standard if you ask me.

If you are an Obama supporter I wouldn't belive any poll. The only thing that matters is what you do on election day. Are you going to go out and caucuse or vote when your day comes, or will you sit on the sideline and watch the Clinton's win another state. Get up get involved and vote for Obama America. Nevada your next. What are you going to do

I like Huckabee but his inexperience on the national level is coming through a little.  I appreciate that he doesn't "play the game" like everyone else, but he's still kind of like that little 3rd grader who's just now figuring out how to verbally spar with the 6th graders.His comments are so awkward sometimes.  McCain on the other hand, has the experience and has controlled far more on the national stage than a lot of people give him credit for.  He's got legislative experience, a working knowledge of the military, a healthy grasp on relations, a rather unprecedented bi-partisan relationship (which means stuff might actually get done), apart from the fact he's older than Moses he's awesome.  I'd really like to see a McCain/Huckabee ticket come November.  Huck could use the 4-8 years experience before he's a serious candidate.  

Prediction:  huckabee WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT OF THIS COUNTRY

OK Rob, while we're looking at Fact check, let's review what Senator Clinton said in the debate:

Clinton: Well, Tim, I think it's well accepted that the 2005 energy bill was the Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill. It was written by lobbyists. It was championed by Dick Cheney. It wasn't just the green light that it gave to more nuclear power. It had enormous giveaways to the oil and gas industries. ... It was the wrong policy for America. It was so heavily tilted toward the special interests that many of us, at the time, said, you know, that's not going to move us on the path we need, which is toward clean, renewable green energy.

And Fact Check's response:

This is the third time we've pointed out Clinton's distortion of this legislation. She is continuing a bogus line of attack that we debunked when Democrats deployed it widely in the 2006 congressional elections. While it's true that Republican lawmakers had once considered large tax breaks for oil and gas companies in the bill, the biggest of them had been stripped out of the bill by the time it passed.

Senator Obama's answer, however, was factually accurate:
Obama was closer to the truth when he said the 2005 bill (which he supported) was "the largest investment in clean energy ... that we had ever seen."

Obama: Well, the reason I voted for it [the 2005 energy bill] was because it was the single largest investment in clean energy – solar, wind, biodiesel – that we had ever seen. And I think it is – we talked about this earlier – if we are going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, then we're going to have to ramp up how we're producing energy here in the United States.

No need to believe me, just go to www.factcheck.org.  Careful how you grab that sword Rob, it's sharp on both sides.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/stacking_the_deck.html

After the NH results I believe everyone has learned that surveys such as this one mean very little, unfortunately.

So what about Obama's experience?  First, being in the Ilinois state senate does not give one experience in things that matter to most Americans like social security, national security, and taxes.  Second, the guy voted "present" over 100 times in the state senate to avoid tough votes.  Third, he has missed 60% of the US Senate votes this year while he has been out campaigning.

Huckabee just told a crowd in South Carolina that if the government tells them they can't display the Confederate flag on public grounds, that he would shove the poll where the sun don't shine.

On the other hand, he wants to amend the Constitution to adhere to the Bible. He also wants to tell people they can't get married because they are gay.

Uh, Mike, what about those who aren't Christians? Are you shoving the flag poll up their hiney too?

Here's my suggestion: If you seriously think you have a chance to win in November after statements like these, you might need a couple whacks over the head with that poll until you are unconcious so we don't have to listen to this garbage anymore.
CitizenJ (Sent Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:20 PM)

CitizenJ, One of these days you might actually provide facts.  As usual you tend the stretch the truth and twist the words.

I'd be intrigued by a McCain/Huckabee ticket.  I think with the combination of them garnering 50+ percent of the republican's (moderate and conservative) voters, I think they would have a shot against Hillary or Obama...

MSNBC poll and you expect us to beleive the numbers.Is this the same Mason Dixon poll that had Obama about a mile ahead in New Hampshire. I do not doubt that he will win the S.C. election. The break down of the vote strongly favors him and that is to be expected. I also think he will do well in Nevada, but after that, wins are going to come a little less often. I live in Texas and the last poll had Hillary up by almost 20 points.

After Huckabee showed his true colors with his statement that he seeks to modify the Constitution I am sincerely hoping McCain and Romney turf this wolf in sheep's clothing......

With all of the mudslinging and the media using their power to persuade the vote, I am fed up with the current offering and was thinking, "If Americans wrote in and commented on who they would like to see as Pres. or who they would like to see Run, what kind of list would we see?" I'm talking about ANYONE whether running or not or previously running or not, involved or not involved in politics in any way. ....I'll start the list myself, I really like Joe Biden, his experience and his stance and wish he had the support to continue in the race.

Hate to say this but Newsweek's reporting is about as pro-hilary as it gets.   With that said, - if that's really all they have on him then best of luck.  

Going into the South Carolina Primary on Saturday Mike Huckabee has is tied with John McCain in the polls.  The Huckabee camp needs everyone able to vote to get out there and cast your vote for him.  His big stances which are some of the most important are on illegal immigration.  We should send the illegals back to whereever it is they came from.  The United States has enough problems that we dont need them draining our enconomy.  Senator McCain wants to let them stay.  WHY???  Also, Gov. Huckabee is a devout Christian and as a Christian I believe that he will stick to the laws and code that helped found this great nation.  One other thing Gov Huckabee cherishes life, and is against abortion.  If people are adult enough to make a child they should be grown up enough to handle what the outcome may be.  Another thing marriage should be between a man and a woman thats how life was intended to be.  Whether you belive in God or nothing, If people were designed to be Gay then you would not need a man and a woman to reproduce.  
Support Mike Huckabee

print out for report

If experience was the most important issue, then the democrats should have put their money behind Biden or Richardson.  The fact that neither of these candidates are still in the race implies that experience is NOT the most important issue.  

CitizenJ, One of these days you might actually provide facts.  As usual you tend the stretch the truth and twist the words.

Just the Facts Please (Sent Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:29 PM)

Well, I apologize for paraphrasing. If it's the actual quote you want (which, I believe, qualifies as a fact), here it is:

"You don't like people from outside the state coming in and telling you what to do with your flag. In fact, if somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do."

Good enough? Just in case it's not, he said it a SECOND time, in a DIFFERENT place. Still "just the facts":

"I know what would happen if somebody comes to my state in Arkansas and tells us what to do, it doesn't matter what it is, tell us how to run our schools, tell us how to raise our kids, tell us what to do with our flag — you want to come tell us what to do with the flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole."

If your problem with my statement is the part about amending the Constitution, well, here is your FACT:

“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”

I'm sorry if you don't like it, but as you requested: just the facts.

Are The Clinton’s Crooks? Paul Harvey would call this,  “The rest of the story”

The following paragraphs are taken from an article on MSNBC site search.

Do any of you Clinton voters think the NEW YORK TIMES would lie about HILLARY?

Read the full following article for your own good and also mine. Copy the article and e-mail it to everyone on your list.

Instructions on how to find the full article is noted at the bottom.


By Don Van Natta Jr., Jo Becker and Mike McIntire
updated 1:57 a.m. CT, Thurs., Dec. 20, 2007

People don’t throw money Clinton’s way to be nice. They need something in return and the Clinton’s owe a lot to a lot of people.
   
A joint effort?  Slick answer Hillary.  
At a Democratic debate in September, 2007 when Mrs. Clinton was asked whether the Clinton Library foundation would disclose its donors, she indicated that the decision was not hers. “Well, you’ll have to ask them,” she replied, referring to the former president and his staff.

IS PAYOLA THE ANSWER TO A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON?
Mrs. Clinton played an important role in shaping both the foundation’s organization and the scope of its work, said Karen A. Tramontano, a senior adviser in the Clinton White House and the foundation’s first chief of staff.
Advisers also were acutely aware that the foundation’s operations — and any perception of a conflict — could harm Mrs. Clinton politically. “She and I would speak frequently,” Ms. Tramontano said. “She had a lot of ideas. All the papers that went to him went to her.”

Early on, donations to the Clinton library caused perception problems. The day after he left office, Mr. Clinton was embroiled in a scandal over his 11th-hour pardon of the financier Marc Rich, who fled the United States in 1983 to avoid tax evasion and other charges. A Congressional hearing later revealed that the pardon came after Mr. Rich’s former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $450,000 to Mr. Clinton’s library.
_______________________________________________________________________________

The New York Times has compiled the first comprehensive list of 97 donors who gave or pledged a total of $69 million for the Clinton presidential library in the final years of the Clinton administration. The examination found that while some $1 million contributors were longtime Clinton friends, others were seeking policy changes from the administration. Two pledged $1 million each while they or their companies were under investigation by the Justice Department.
________________________________________________________________________________
Family donors
Toward the end of the Clinton administration, Dr. Richard Machado Gonzalez and his lawyer, Miguel D. Lausell, both major Democratic donors in the 1996 presidential election, were pushing the president to increase Medicare reimbursements to hospitals in Puerto Rico, like the one owned by Dr. Machado.

Mr. Lausell pledged $1 million to the library in 1999, eight months before Mr. Clinton proposed increasing Medicare payments to Puerto Rico for the second time in his administration.                 Dr. Machado gave the library foundation $100,000 about six months later.
In the interim, the president appointed Mr. Lausell to the board of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which helps American companies with foreign projects.

Both men are supporters of Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Lausell serves as a senior adviser on Latino affairs. Dr. Machado did not return calls seeking comment, and efforts to reach Mr. Lausell through the campaign were not successful.

_______________________________________________________________________________

A fledgling telecommunications company, NextWave Wireless, was battling the Federal Communications Commission when library fund-raisers tapped its chief executive and a major investor. NextWave had promised to pay $4.74 billion for cellphone licenses, but when it declared bankruptcy before completing its payments, the F.C.C. threatened to put the licenses up for public auction, which would have ruined NextWave.
Over three consecutive days in December 1999, with a decision imminent, the Clinton library logged a $100,000 pledge from NextWave’s chief executive, Allen Salmasi, and a $100,000 contribution plus a $1 million pledge from Bay Harbour Management, a major investor in NextWave.
The agency ultimately repossessed NextWave’s licenses, prompting a court battle that the company won. Bay Harbour’s co-owner, Douglas Teitelbaum, who declined to comment, never fulfilled his promise to contribute the additional $1 million. Mr. Salmasi did not respond to an e-mail message or to calls to a company spokesman.
Mr. Clinton also found support for his library among some people who figured in the Democratic fund-raising controversies dating to the 1996 elections that involved White House sleepovers, coffees for big donors and money funneled from the Chinese government.
Among them was Farhad Azima, an Iranian-born aviation executive whose involvement in the Iran-contra scandal — one of his companies flew military equipment to Iran in the 1980s — prompted the Democratic National Committee to return a $143,000 donation in 1997. The party later accepted the money. Mr. Azima pledged $1 million to the library.
Another $1 million pledge came from Eric and Patricia Hotung. Mr. Hotung is a Hong Kong businessman who in 1997 was granted a meeting with Mr. Clinton’s national security adviser after Mr. Hotung’s wife, Patricia, an American, offered $100,000 to the Democrats.
Nine of the original library donors received presidential appointments to organizations like the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities and the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. In his final days in office, Mr. Clinton appointed two of the donors, the businessmen Mark S. Weiner and Vinod Gupta, to the board of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

 _____________________________________________________________________________  

On October 6, 1999, the charitable arm of the Anheuser-Busch Companies gave $200,000, the first of five payments over five years totaling $1 million, according to records filed by the company’s foundation. Less than a month earlier, the company, the country’s leading beer maker, had scored a major victory when the Clinton administration’s Federal Trade Commission dropped a bid to regulate beer, wine and liquor advertising.
                                                                                             
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Bernard L. Schwartz, another major Democratic contributor who was then chief executive of Loral Space and Communications, gave $250,000 and pledged $750,000 more in 2000. At the time, investigators were trying to determine if Loral had improperly provided satellite technology to China. Under the Bush administration, Loral agreed to pay a civil fine of $14 million to settle the case. Mr. Schwartz, is now also a Hillary raiser.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Long enough for now?
Read the full article by doing an MSNBC SITE SEARCH for  “CLINTON LIBRARY”
Then find the article>>>  Clinton donors overlap (12/20/07) 3 Pages. It’s worth it

Don’t forget to copy and e-mail the article to everyone on your address list

Nobody wants to see your GUESS polls.....I'll just wait until the election and view the REAL results...when will you people ever learn.

May we please sell the South to someone?  Anyone?  Half of you can't spell and the other half must live in caves, judging from your 18th-century views.  Do you actually believe the stuff you write, or is it just to spark controversy?  There should be an IQ test before anyone is allowed to vote.

In reply to Fed up; I thought I was the only one to see that Joe Biden would be the best candidate.  Glad to know there's someone else who looks beyond the glitz.

It is a travesty that Hillary Clinton has dishonestly convinced voters that she has more experience than Obama. Technically, this is false: Obama has served more years in elected office than Hillary, specifically, 8 years in the Illinois Senate (which follows nearly identical rules and procedures as the U.S. Senate), and 3 years in the U.S. Senate for a total of 11 years. Moreover, Obama spent many years as a grassroots organizer on the poverty ravaged streets of south Chicago working for school reform and environmental protection among other key issues, was a civil rights lawyer, and a law professor at the University of Chicago which is one of the top law schools in the world. Clinton, on the other hand has served only one term plus a year in her second term-a total of 7 years in elected office. Being first lady does not count the same as being elected or appointed. There is no accountability-- no one knows what she did or didn't do, as she wasn't official given she was not elected or appointed. There is no record. Thus far, she has taken the liberty of cherry picking the good things she did, but this is problematic as we don't know the mistakes she made--again, because she wasn't elected. It is undemocratic for her to claim she is fit to be president for her role in a non-elected, non appointed position. Now, she has switched to saying she has "35 years of experience". The commencement address at Wellsley apparently is part of this "experience" which makes ready to be president. If she now wants to count non-political experience, then Obama can best her in this area as well. Please see the breakdown below. At some point, the media must sort this distortion out, by simply laying out the resumes of the candidates:

Obama served 8 years in State government (Illinois state Senator), and been in the U.S. Senate for 3 years.

Hillary Clinton has served 7 years in the U.S Senate, and has no prior experience in elected office.

Bill Clinton served in State Government for 10 years (Arkansas Governor), and served ZERO years in national government.
John Edwards served 6 years in the U.S Senate, and has no other experience in elected office.

Synopsis

Numerically, Bill Clinton had less experience in government than Obama. More importantly, Bill Clinton had ZERO foreign policy experience. John Edwards has less experience in elected office than any candidate running for president. The key point is that Obama's 8 years in the Illinois Senate have been completely overlooked, and warrant equal comparison to Bill Clinton’s only experience before he became president, which was also in state government for a very small/insignificant state with no major cities (Arkansas).
Hillary Clinton has consistently referred to her experience as first lady. Two problems: 1.) she was not an elected official accountable to voters, and for those of us that believe in democratically elected leaders, her claims of being "deeply involved and hands on" during Bill Clinton's administration should be viewed as problematic. The inherent problems related to not being an elected official but claiming to be deeply involved in Bill Clinton's administration is illustrated through the lack of paper trail detailing exactly what she did and in what areas/issues during his 8 years in office.2.) The evidence which has been pieced together through testimony of former Clinton officials shows that Hillary has greatly exaggerated her involvement in policymaking. The following article details the nature of Clinton’s experience as first lady:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22395503/     Overall, it is unprecedented for a candidate to claim they have experience at the highest level of government despite not being an elected or appointed official (aside from her healthcare failure in which she was appointed to a commission). Being a First lady, no matter how politically active, is not the same as being Secretary of State or National Security Advisor. For Clinton to portray her time as first lady as equivalent to being an official in the white house is not just a stretch, it’s disingenuous and undemocratic. Laura Bush for Pres?
Obama is the most well rounded of all candidates. Aside from his 11 years serving in legislatures, for many years he was a community organizer in Harlem and South Chicago (actually working with real people at a grassroots level, something Hillary has never done), a civil rights lawyer, and a law professor at the University of Chicago law school. Compare Obama’s current experience (age 46) to Bill Clinton’s when he first ran in 1992 (age 42), in which he was accused of not having enough experience, given that he had only served as governor of a tiny state and had no foreign policy experience. Clinton argued that a candidate can “have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience. Obama has also used Clinton’s quote from 1992: “The people of America recognize that there are other measures of leadership and there are other measures of experience than simply having been in Washington.  And so my experience is rooted in the real lives of real people, and I will bring real results if Americans have courage to change.”
Experience doesn’t equal good judgment—Cheney and Rumsfeld each had 35 years of “experience” in Washington, and this hasn’t led to good judgment.
Among all the major candidates, who got the single most important foreign policy decision of the last 30 years right? Obama.

Earls, San Francisco, CA (Sent Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:00 PM)
----------------------

I knew Barack has more experience and wondered about Hillary's '35 years of experience'....Thank You for this information!!

The real 'change' candidate, Kucinich, barely gets a hearing. America gets what it deserves - more of the same! Continuous wars, meaningless health-care (whatever crumbs the insurance industry and drug companies parcel out), and more environmental crimes!

Let's get a 3rd party to give us REAL choice!!

As far as the confederate flag goes, as long as it flies in its proper place with the Stars and Stripes , I could care less. Ass far as huck goes, no way would I vote for this religious Bigot, "it's
my way or none policy". I also do not like the idea of any one being able to "buy" the oval office, what would happen if during campaigns the press was free?  We are supposed to be an equal opportunity nation, right? I myself will vote for the person I feel will be the best person to lead this country out of the mess we are in and secure our safety.  I am older than John McCain and have voted since IKE, don't count out us seniors as dieing before our time. Use our knowledge and experience and lets get this job done right.

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