I love to Edwards take second! Well I would not mind first either.

New Yorkers for Obama! Forget the Times editorial board -- come out and show your support this Saturday: WALK FOR OBAMA. 11am at 130th and Lenox, Noon at Union Square. Both walking to a 2PM Rally in Columbus Circle. RSVP and more details here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4rc9j

Show the world that New Yorkers want a President with integrity and vision.
OBAMA '08!

This is his home state and the only one he won in 2004. So I wouldn't count him out. He has deep ties in that area and they'll turn out for him. The problem is that this sets high expectations that he probably won't meet.

So Hillary know Rezko and her and Bill have taken a photo with him, which means he was a campaign contributor to Bill
LMAO
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=4193801&mesg_id=4193838

If anyone with any kind of insight was listening to the Right debate last night could tell Clinton has this thing tied up. On Feb. 5th She will blow away Obama and Edwards like it or not. She then will probably will team up with Edwards at the convention. Turn out the lights the party's over.

@Mike:

"This is his home state and the only one he won in 2004. "

He actually won both North and South Carolina in 2004, even though he had already dropped out before the North Carolina primary.

Wouldn't a more accurate headline be Obama Losing Support to Edwards?

From the poll, Obama loses 5% and Edwards gains 6%, while Clinton stays the same

When Bill comes in third in South Carolina, he''l be in perfect position to make a comeback on Feb 5. My only concern is that when he begins his third term in 09, their won't be enough high quality poontang around the oval office.

Ding7777: That may be accurate, but it's also not particularly relevant. What'll matter, when all is said and done, is the ordinal rankings and the margin of victory (and, perhaps, its racial breakdown). If Hillary finishes third, it'll revitalize Edwards, who mostly competes for the same pool of voters, and deal a serious - perhaps mortal - blow to her Super Tuesday ambitions.

Anyone else see today's Rasmussen poll out of Georgia? Looks like Obama's leading there, too. Which leads to the interesting question: can Hillary win the nomination if she loses every southern state (save the one without any delegates)?

For what it matters, Results for Thursday were Obama 36, Clinton 31, Edwards 19

Matthew: Hillary will pick someone to run with who can get along with Bill and will be helpful with the economy. She doesn't need Edwards for anything. In SC, the only thing that Edwards is doing is fracturing the white vote. He is helping Obama.
Cynic: Hillary - without a doubt - will take Florida. The Hispanic vote. That will build her up in the south. She knows what she is doing. The Repugs know she knows what she is doing. Anyone who doubts her ability to squash her competition like a bug - is deluding themselves.

Yes BionicWoman, I agree. Especially with "Anyone who doubts her ability to squash her competition like a bug - is deluding themselves." Her competitiveness and competence make her clearly the best Democratic candidate since, well, since her husband. It is refreshing to see a real candidate in the race this year.

rg: That's spot-on. More to the point, if Edwards wins second, that becomes the dominant media narrative for the next week. "Did Bill Clinton lose second place in SC for his wife?" "Did Hillary's negative attacks hurt her?" "Is John Edwards still viable?"

Those are great questions from the perspective of the Obama camp. If they can focus the conversation there, and not on race, they win.

Goldspinner, Zmulls does get it. S/He was clearly parodying the common meme of the media that has been irrationally excluding Edwards.

Appreciate the sentiment though. Go Edwards!

Matthew:

The Clintons did great for themselves, and in the process, destroyed the Democratic Party. When they left office, we had fewer Democratic governors, fewer senators, fewer congressman, and control of fewer state legislatures than when they were elected eight years before - in most cases by dramatic margins. They lost control of Congress for the first time in fifty years. And their hand-picked successor, and honorable and decent public servant, lost the race to succeed them.

And why? Because of their preening hubris and lack of a moral core. That's why we lost Congress - because of Hillary's effort to ram through health care reform in a nakedly partisan fashion. That's why Gore was defeated; because the president of the united states got a blowjob in the oval office. Because voters were sick of the mendacity.

It never stuck to Clinton himself, who is the most gifted politician of our era, and a man whose basic impulses have always been for good. But his other impulses have always gotten him into trouble. It destroyed the entire party apparatus, and it's taken us eight long years to recover. And now, you want to go back? For pity's sake, why?

Matthew, for someone talking of others being fed propaganda, you really need to look in the mirror. If you think Obama said he loved Reagan and the Clintons hated him, you truly have fed in to the propaganda. If you want real Reagan love, go back and listen to Bill Clinton's speeches when he was running for president. Or listen to Hillary and Bill's comments in Tom Brokaw's book. Or um, just keep listening to your Clinton propaganda while telling the rest of us to "get over our Republican" talking points.

And no, its not the Republicans who are trying to divide the Democratic party right now - its the Clintons. Looks like they're succeeding. Once more we have yet another candidate going for exactly 51.2% of the electorate.

Jeez, Matthew, not too much Clinton worship going on with you, huh? You'll recall that Clinton only managed a plurality of voters in the 1992 election. If you believe that most Perot backers were defecting from the D's rather than the R's, you obviously weren't paying attention.

Yes, thanks to all the lemmings and machine loyalists out there, she probably will win the D nomination. But for all the rational people who may be willing to vote for her because of perfectly sound reasons (SCOTUS being the most obvious), there's AT LEAST one or two people out there who will wind up voting for McCain simply because, rightly or wrongly, she is Hillary. Your pleas of getting over the Right Wing Hillary Hate Machine fall on deaf ears for those who might vote for another Dem in this election.

And you don't think those votes will be required come November? We'll see.

EmbitteredDem,

I'm with you on your comments to Matthew. The thing that amazes me during this whole campaign is the notion, the meme generated by the Clinton camp about Hillary's vaunted "experience". The so-called "35 years".

She has held elected office less time than Barack Obama, she has been on the national stage about four years more, but there is a great disconnect here that is really troubling.

I was talking to a female co-working, who is in her 60's the other day, and asked her how she intended to vote (we were talking about the exciting democratic race). Without hesitation, she said Hillary. I asked her why, and she said "experience". After probing more, it became clear she defines experience differently than I do. Her rationale broke down upon two lines:

1. Hillary has been in the limelight for 16 years.
2. Hillary is about the same age as her.

Name recognition and age identity, or projection. Perception is reality in politics. She was shocked when I pointed out that Obama has more electoral experience than her. Maybe Hillary is right, we need to focus more on Obama's legislative record in his home state. Maybe Hillary is making another tactical mistake.

Sfam, she'll never break 49%, like mr. bill. She has to hope for a third party spoiler like perot, but that's not happening as mr. 9/11 is history, so the religious right won't be fielding a third party candidate to suck up republican votes.

Forty years ago in 1967 Carl B. Stokes was elected the first black Mayor of a major American City. I was the operations manager of that campaign along with my partner Geraldine Williams. In 1965, Stokes had run and almost won in a city that was 70% white and 30% black. In 1965 he had come so close to winning that there was a recount. His victory in 67 was hailed as one the greatest moments in the civil rights struggle and also a triumph of the brotherhood of man. Partially, yes----partially, no. In the 1965 campaign there were practically no white votes for Stokes. In 67 there was only 15%. Not exactly a triumph for the brotherhood of man. In fact, in 1965 I was his "white" aide and traveling companion to show not only the white community, but also just as importantly the black community that he had white support. Many in the black community said "it's not time"---he's not ready---will he win and bring disgrace to the community---will he be killed by the racists" Do these same sentiments sound familiar in 2007?
Also, in 1965 he was up against a potent political machine, one that regularly "bought off" members of the black community. There were city councilman and black pastors all of whom had ties to the white establishment. Sound familiar in 2007?
In both 1965 and 1967 it was the black community that turned out in large numbers and then voted 97% for Stokes. He still lost in 1965 because the councilman and pastors disaffected some of the black vote but it was so close that in 1967 and with the blessing of the establishment he won----but by a very small margin. Again, it was the black turnout and overwhelming percentage of vote in his favor that carried the day.
How does the Barack Obama campaign of 2007 differ from those two campaigns of long ago? He is running against the establishment (the Clinton machine) and there are black "leaders" that are staying with the establishment. Polls are showing that many in the black community are saying the same things that they said in 1965-----it's not time---he's not ready---he will be killed if he is elected. Are these sentiments carried down through time going to defeat him in 2007?
Here is the reason that the campaigns are not alike. The white support for Obama is huge compared to the white support for Stokes forty years ago. Who would have dreamed then that a black man running for the President of the United States could garner such white support, attract such crowds, and be so close to winning. When I see campaign crowds, I see a sea of white faces cheering him and I see a much different time than that of 1965 & 1967.
Following is an example from the 1965 campaign. It shows how extraordinary the idea of a black mayor (there are now hundreds) was to the black community at that time.
The last weekend before the election we had a parade through the streets of the East Side of Cleveland. It wasn't much of a parade, as parades go, a handful of cars with balloons and banners on the them, horns honking, people waving, and Carl and is wife sitting on the back of the last car. I was in the front seat. As the caravan pulled past the corner, there was a small boy about ten or eleven standing in the middle of a group of children. The cars had been going past honking with signs "Stokes for Mayor" on the sides. As the car with Stokes sitting on the back came to the corner the boy stood straight up, his eyes widened at the sight of Carl and he cried out, "HE'S COLORED." He started to clap his hands and jump up and down. "HE'S COLORED, HE'S COLORED," he cried out to no one in particular. "HE'S COLORED, HE'S COLORED" and he started to skip down the street after the car. I looked back as the cars picked up speed and left the little boy in the distance. He was still running and clapping his hands. I turned around to Carl and caught a very different expression on his face, part smile and part a distant look in his eyes. "I think it's all been worthwhile," I said. A quick but soft-spoken reply, "Yes, I think you're right." That's how it was back then. A little boy thought, "this couldn't be-----his parents and grandparents thought---could this possibly be? And a city and a nation wondered if history was in the making.
I sometimes wonder where that little boy is now, forty years later. What about his children and grandchildren? Does he remember how he felt that day? Does he remember the wonderment of seeing a black man siting on the top of a convertible, his skipping down the street in that wonderment of a black man striving for the impossible? How do his children and grandchildren feel today? Will they participate in today's "impossible dream"?
Now, forty years later I see the crowds, more white than black, cheering a man of color. Now, forty years later, I see polls showing that this man of color could likely be the next President of the United States. I see now, forty years later, that dreams do come true-------and a little boy of so long ago could still clap, skip down the street and cry out----"He's colored-He's colored---- he's colored"
Will the black community support Obama as we Irish Catholics did for John Kennedy in 1960, as the Mormons will do for Mitt Romney this year, as every ethnic group has done for their history making candidates since the country began? It is the black vote that can insure victory for Barack Obama. This is the year. This is the time. This is history in the making.

The face of The United States of America is about to change.

Matthew:

Let's count the lies, half-truths, and distortions in your post.

(1) "I don't see others with this": In fact, the only other poll taken in January in GA, by Mason-Dixon, also showed Obama with a lead, 36-33.

(2) "Obama does not (a) have widespread core Democratic support": Well, in South Carolina and Georgia, Obama now leads among registered Democrats. Or does the color of their skin disqualify these voters from being core Democrats?

(3) "African-Americans and the 20-somethings are his only constituency": In New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada, Obama ran strongly or won voters under the age of 45. Hillary ran strongly with or won voters over the age of 55. In South Carolin and Georgia, Obama now leads among Hispanics. He has led everywhere among Democrats earning $100k or more, and in several states among those earning $50k or more. He generally leads Hillary among men.

(4)"I suspect many African-Americans will return to their well-deserved support of Clinton.": You're entitled, I suppose, to your suspicions. And no is suggesting that black voters will defect to, say, John McCain. But will they bother going to the polls for Hillary, a candidate they now oppose by margins ranging from 2-1 to 5-1? I'd love to see some evidence for that.

EmbitteredDem, the Clinton's did not destroy the Democratic party. Dredging up Bill's personal embarrassment doesn't help or make an argument. It is cute and serves Republican-purposes but seriously, let's focus on why the Democrats lost. In 2000 and 2004 we ended up with loser candidates. First, as so clearly shown at election-time, Gore would fight for the win he had in his hands and in 2004 Kerry wouldn't defend himself from even the worst attacks on his character. Across the party we had others where were equally unsuitable to hold or continue to hold office. Further, we've have party traitors like Lieberman in our midst and suffered pandering by others. Even now, we have a Democratic Congress that says 'pretty please' to its interests, then folds rather than standing on principle.

Yes, Clinton comes from stronger stock and is a winner for the party. She'll compromise, sure, anger a few people, dredge up old memories, but she won't fold, wimp out, or not defend herself or the country. As a male, it is both sad for the sex and happy for our national maturity to note that it will take a woman to give the party some backbone.

Matthew:

I notice that you begin your discussion with the 2000 elections. What about what happened to the party when the Clintons were actually in office?

But I'll accept the challenge. Sure, we've had our problems with candidates and with internal dissension. But where the heck have the Clintons been for the past eight years? If it's not beneath Bill Clinton's dignity as an ex-president to campaign vociferously, to launch broadside attacks, to get out there on the hustings - why didn't he do it for Kerry? Why wasn't he barnstorming the country, denouncing Bush and all he's stood for? Why is he willing to tear down a good Democrat, when he's been conspicuously absent as a Republican president and congress led us into an ill-advised war, distored the constitution, bankrupted the nation, and tore down everything he accomplished in office?

There's only one possible conclusion. This isn't about restoring Democratic control of the White House, or defeating the Bush legacy. This is about the Clinton grip on power. For the first time in eight years, their role at the helm of the Democratic Party has been challenged, and they've come out swinging. This is all about them.

Well, I'm sorry. They had their chance. They had a majority in both houses of Congress, and squandered. They had the consistently high approval ratings that you cited before, and did next to nothing with them. And they've had eight years to point our party back to its roots, and blown it.

Their day is done. Let's move on.

Matthew-

I've seen you around and you are pretty on point with your support of HRC. However, to counter your claim of Obama's support in GA probably spiking, or already have spiked and now in decline, I shall only put your attention to the right of your screen on the overall national trends and what we have seen in every state thus far.

Hillary has a big national lead. As the primary/caucus approaches, Obama's support spikes to within spitting distance (or, as in the case of Iowa, to overocming Hillary's lead).

Why would GA see a different dynamic?

BTW, I'd love to see a poll of MN. Haven't seen one in 6 months.... Are we that unimportant?

Angry Vet:

You're very important, but you're a caucus state, and so you're tricky to poll. Not to fear: SurveyUSA and Rasmussen are now rotating among the Feb 5 states. Expect a poll before the election - even though it will be meaningless.

Angry Vet,

This front loaded primary process significantly favors Hillary. It's about name recognition.

Anywhere Obama has an opportunity to do retail politics, he closes or overcomes the gap.

Unfortunately, Super Tuesday looms, and Obama won't have the same opportunities he did in Iowa and elsewhere. The media backlash against Billary has been helpful, and I'm hopeful if he stays within single digits in most contests.

This is going to the convention baby! Yee Haw!

It will take an Edwards or an Obama to give the Democratic party credibility again! The dynasts have already almost destroyed this nation. The death drive they took us on,is over. We survive by overreacting against the mistaken past. Mitt is merely, warmed over, more of the same. Edwards or Obama are the only candidates who can make the case for change.

Interesting quote from Zogby in the write-up of today's results at www.zoggby.com.

Pollster John Zogby: The real movement here is by John Edwards, who is the only one who continues to gain ground in our three-day tracking poll. His increase appears to be coming from African American voters who are slowly making up their minds – he is up to 7%. Can he catch Clinton by Saturday’s vote, perhaps bumping her from a second-place finish? Perhaps that is why she has returned to the state to campaign. While he has lost a small percentage of ground overall, Obama continues to lead among both men and women, and in all regions of the state. More evidence that the race is tightening down the stretch: Thursday’s polling alone had Obama leading with 36%, but Clinton was just five points back at 31% (a good day for her). Edwards came in with 19% yesterday alone. The one-day sample was not enough to draw sweeping conclusions, but it is an indicator that this race continues to change.

In case you were wondering about the effectiveness of former President Clinton’s campaign work on behalf of his wife, here is an indication: South Carolina Democrats hold an overwhelmingly positive view of Bill Clinton – yesterday’s polling alone shows he has a 75% favorable rating, compared to just 20% who hold an unfavorable view of him.

Without more history it's difficult to guess what, if anything, those overnight results might mean. But it could mean we're in for a tighter finish than one might guess. The caveat is that it's generally considered irresponsible for pollsters to go around talking about the overnight results in tracking polls. It's one of the things that gives tracking polls a bad name and it's something Zogby has a notable habit of doing (but didn't do in NH, ironically). But this year, with the ridiculously front-loaded primary schedule, things have been moving so fast... well, you just never know.

Angry Vet, I guess I'm mistaken on Franken as I thought he opposed the war and everything that Bush stands for. I'll have to go and read in detail.

"Where is Obama's support coming from if it isn't coming from Massachusetts and NY?" And the national trends... That is a good question. Especially seeing polls like MA today with 59% for Clinton and only 22% for Obama. It seems that most individual states show somewhat similar results, especially the bigger states. Even if Obama can win the Black-belt in the south, I doubt it will give him momentum or win nationally, where he trails mostly double-digit.

I'm skeptical of all of the polls--too many of them, false responses, wording of questions and order of answers, timing with headline news, Bradley effect, and more. As someone who has solely used cell phone as home phone since 1999, a significant trend today, I wonder how representative the polling is? Further, I suspect pollsters skew results (or adjust them...) to account for the most vocal among the population, even if they aren't polled. The online community is very vocal but I really don't think their votes are significant in the big picture. Finally, what about all of those 'likely to vote' people who never make it to the polls. I think this has already hurt Obama and will play in other primaries.

I think it is very impressive that Nevada goes from less than 10K participation in 2004 to nearly 110K this year. That's a lot of new or newly active voters. However we mix this up in the primaries, I'm sure this gives the Republican's shivers as there is truly a groundswell of opposition to them and especially Bush over the past eight years. (I wish every candidate would use Bush's name in every sentence where they name a Republican candidate. The connection cannot be allowed to lapse.)

Matthew-That's great news for Bill, seeing as how he's running for a third term.

Interesting historical revision, Matthew.

We gained Senate seats in the 2000 election, to such a degree that we were able to power-share with the GOP.

We also had the Democrat win the popular vote in the presidential election.

One of the reasons that the GOP held on to those governor's mansion was widespread voter satisfaction with the Clinton economic boom, which kept Republicans in office in places like NY, which were already trending blue.

Dan,

Thanks, yes I was parodying. If Edwards comes in third, they will say he's toast. If he surprises and comes in second, we'll get the dismissive "it's his home state" talk. You'll even get that sort of dismissiveness if he were to come in first.

I still think that if the convention is open then Anything Can Happen.

I think that the case for Jim Webb as VP for any of the Dems is quite compelling. He's a senator from VA, a former Regan Sec of the Navy, a Vietnam vet with a son in Iraq. So he covers the waterfront on a border state that may swing to the Dems, an authentic and strong voice on defense, and a Regan Democrat. Webb should prove a strong attraction to blue collar whites, who might otherwise go for McCain.

Other than Webb, the Dems should be looking for someone from a mountain state with a lot of electoral votes or Florida/Ohio who can appeal to Regan Democrats and Independents.

Cynic: Hillary - without a doubt - will take Florida. The Hispanic vote.

Do you mean in the primary or in the GE? If the former, I suspect that you are right. If the latter, I think you are dreaming. Neither Clinton nor Obama will carry a single southern state (and that very much includes the "purple" states like VA, the "swing" states like LA and FL and Clinton's "home" state of AR). Meanwhile, the hispanics in FL are at least as likely to vote Republican as Democrat; many Cubans look on the GOP as the party to stick it to Castro.

It is offensive to think that because one is black he/she is compelled to vote for a candidate that is black. It is equally offensive to think that one has to vote for a female because one is female.

How about voting for a candidate because you feel that candidate is the best one for the job?

Pauline, I would truly hope that everyone votes for their best personal choice, best for nation and party. Anyone voting because of race is very narrow-minded and will get what they deserve: a race-based loser with no national appeal.

I would love to see a second place finish for Edwards, with Hillary last. That would perhaps (a) break the dam open to help both Obama and him in the Feb 5th primaries, and (b) break the superdelegates' perception of Hillary as the "safe bet" -- which is what most of the superdelegates always base it on...

Also, if by chance Obama loses -- I'd much rather it be to Edwards than Hillary. He's run a tough but fair campaign. And if his voting record doesn't match his rhetoric, at least he cops to it, and I can believe that he's moved more progressive over time.

When have we had a two term democratic president? FDR(4) and Bill and Hill(2). You may not care about the economy, but most people do. Look at what's going on now. How can the republicans take credit for Bill's success, when they had congress and the presidency since 2000, and look at the mess we are in? The difference in the 90s was Bill and Hill. They are both brilliant people who know how to get things done. Crime was way down, because more people were working and making money. We were the ennvy of all of the world and respected. Look at how we are viewed now. Bill was able to get Greece to let us land there during the Bonian war. Greece is no friend to the US. Bush couldn't even get Turkey to let us land there for the Iraq war. How much money do we give to Turkey? Bill and Hill know how to talk to people and get people on the side of the US. They are loved around the world. We need to get America back to the greatness we had in the 90s. We have to get off the idea of electing a president, because he's likable personally. That will not get the job done. Bush was more likable than Gore. Everyone knew he was dumb and a stump, but Gore was stiff. Look at what likability got us. Obama says all of the right things in his prepared speeches. At the debates he doesn't know what to say. He is all fluff. He has not proven that he can actually do anything. The Clintons have a proven record of getting things done. This is not the time to roll the dice.

Barron, nicely said.

Interesting hedging, CalID. I'm not surprised about SC women over 50 moving toward Hillary. It seems to me this has to do with learning from "experience" - possibly another word for smarts or wisdom - among these women, who bridge the MLK days (as teens or younger), the Reagan days, the Bill Clinton days and the W days. They've seen all sides of the political spectrum and know the difference between Republican and Democratic values. No, experience isn't automatically good. It can mean being stuck in one view, as well as blinders, arrogance, refusal to recognize the reality out there; but lack of experience can and often does mean the very same things.

Obama is very subtle and charismatic and has the admiration of the MSM (those who have hated and constantly worked to undermine Hillary for nearly 20 years regardless of reality - something those of us who've been around all that time have clearly seen).

But no way is Obama utterly innocent. He has successfully spun himself as the victim of the "vicious, corrupt" Clintons with the MSM and his supporters, and floated an association with and by inimation alleged a similarity to JFK, MLK, Reagan and now Bobby Kennedy. Many of his supporters and most of the MSM find him "visionary," cool and trendy but the on the ground reality of the vision of bringing us all together is triangulating. The fact is that the alleged liberal MSM are mostly Republican or Republican Lite, and there is real concern that that's really what Obama's vision means in practical reality.

BTW, none of the 1960s icons brought us all together. Who do you think killed them all, including Malcolm, one of most charismatic and brilliant leaders of the century?

We havn't had a democratic president win more than one full term since FDR. LBJ won one full term and decided not to run for a second term because he was disgraced by the vietnam war. Carter had one term, so Bill was elected to two full terms, and if he could have run again probably would have won. Now I know they had a lot of personal problems, but they ran the government well. Bill Clinton's approval rating among democrats last week was at 80%. I don't think he is as hated as people on this board say.

From Joan Walsh of Salon.com:

Meanwhile, a new Clemson University poll finds a whopping 36 percent of South Carolina voters still undecided about Saturday's Democratic primary.

NC-11-CD, for what its worth, I agree with your post 1000%.

It's funny, I lived through the 90's and I wasn't a big mr. bill fan at the time. It's hard remembering so long ago but the more sparring I do, the more that I am remembering. I do remeber the lewinsky thing and I thought that was outrageous and unfair. I think alot of people did as well. Ultimately, more than anything else, my guess is that sympathy for that fiasco is why his approval rating was so high at the end of his administration.

On NAFTA and the economy. I remember people were livid at the time. He kept spouting about the 22 million jobs created and such nonsense and the response and discussion was where were they? McDonalds? We lost high paying manufacturing jobs and replaced them with service sector jobs, like mcdonalds. Sorry the more I remember the more I remember that the economy sucked.

Michael A: Sorry the more I remember the more I remember that the economy sucked.

Your memory differs from mine, but maybe that has to do with an age difference, I don't know. I remember struggling through the spike in oil prices after the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74, the subsequent "stagflation," and the lean years of the late 1980s. The era of Bill Clinton's presidency is the only time in my adult life that I have felt moderately well off.

I hope Edwards knocks her down to third place.

Go Obama !

Barron and Matthew -

Why recite the talking points?

Reasonable people can support Hillary for president, but they must address some significant setbacks: 1) She will try to cover what happened under Bill, just as W did for Poppy; that will lead to 8yrs W obstructionism of 12 yrs ReaganBush + 8yrs Hillary obstruction of 8yrs Bill = 36yrs of nontransparency in the Executive. That's bad. 2) Under Bill, we lost House and Senate, meantime he received fewer votes than either Kerry or Gore 3) Republican negatives on Hillary soar, and likely to repeat loss of at least Senate 4) Hillary's "experience" is that of a politicians wife, not a politician (though still valuable, it's not the same as making the decisions. Kathleen Sibelius for president? Got my vote; she made it on her own.) 5) Has Bill's fly opened the last 8 years? You don't know, and I don't want to find out, but we will if Hillary wins.

The long and short of it is that if Hillary wins, we will be fighting the battles of the 90's over again, instead of gaining converts on policy. Reasonable people can say that is worth it, but you two keep denying it, under the meme that "she gets it done." This year, the Dems will win more house seats, more senate seats, and the presidency. But if Hillary wins, the house and senate likely will swing back; if Obama wins, we might be gambling, but the odds are better to keep or gain.

So, Contard you don't doubt that they can run the government, you just think there will be a lot of fighting with republicans? When have democrats and republicans not faught? I don't understand how people feel that Obama will bring some kind of political utopia to Washington. He will be faced with the same things that the Clintons will be faced with. The difference is they have the experience to get things done in Washington. He is so naive, he won't know how to fight the republicans and still win. Why didn't he vote on the Kyle-Liebermann bill? You know the one where he dogged Hillary for voting for it(Iran). He didn't even show up to vote. This guy is a joke. He said that he hit the wrong button on at least 5 times in the Illinois senate. He hit no instead of yes and yes instead of no. Either he is an idiot or he does not want to take tough positions, and then he sits back and criticizes the ones who do. How people are ready to turn the whitehouse over to him, because of some irrational hatred for the Clintons is crazy. He says he can bring people together, why isn't he winning in other demographics besides blacks?