Obama 30, Clinton 28 in NH, Globe poll shows

!GOBAMA!

So everyone thinks she is the best man for the job... that is good. Becasue in the end, we should be looking for people who can work for us not someone who we can have a round of beer with.

Boston Globe commissioned this survey and we're supposed to trust it (didn't they endorse Obama?). Hell, the last 5 polls from reputable survey firms put Clinton ahead (one has it tied).

How about the "likability" factor? Obama 60, Hillary zero. And what about the "phony" factor? Hillary 45, Obama zero.

It is such a dismal set of choices for the Dems the least experienced candidate, the least trusted candidate and then you have the trial lawyer that everyone knows is for the “little guy”, the “regular people”.

The party of George Soros & Michael Moore with such radical views, who could trust anybody from this party?

This is great news. Go, Obama, Go !

And by the way, that was an adorable Christmas ad he had with his two cute little girls.

Barack Obama for President of The United States of America.

Say no to nepotism.
We are a Democracy - not a Monarchy.
Say no to getting us into Iraq by playing it safe with the polls.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.

Why is a poll necessary for something like being trustworthy and electable? Anybody who paid attention to the 90's can tell you that Hillary/Bill cannot be trusted again.

... but you are liking the party led by the retarded George Bush.

The party of George Soros & Michael Moore with such radical views, who could trust anybody from this party?
Posted by: Joe | December 23, 2007 11:17 AM

Radical views? Like invading a country that didn't attack us at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars? And, by the way, Michael Moore is not a Democrat. He hangs them out to dry as well.

I certainly don't view Obama as a "dismal" choice. However, when I look at the Republican field...now that's dismal. All want to send our kids to be slaughtered while righteously condemning abortion, with only Paul excluded from the former. I don't need another white holier-than-thou male telling me what to do.

Joe H--
George Soros and Michael Moore would be far better choices for president than any of the Rupublican hacks that are running!

no one polled me and im voting for Hillary.. I'm no fool. not voting for Obama... due to his lack of experience and his rascist agenda... thanks

It always amazes me that people think a loudmouthed, overaggressive (not assertive, which is really what we want and need), untruthful, and arrogant person like Hillary Clinton would make the best leader.

Obama exudes a quiet strength that is both rational and steady without rancor and bombast.

Isn't that the kind of leader we really want for president of the United States?

Joe-

We can't all be bastions of honesty and veracity like Rove, Bush & Co...let the dems fight amongst themselves and we'll get another true follower of God and Jesus in there to continue covertly turning this country into a hate and war mongering bunch of zealots.

Screw peace, screw fiscal responsibility. Up with war, up with honest W and his cronies.

Looks like things are going down HILL(ary) for Mrs Bill. (She does seem to be running on Bill's experience. All except the Monica stuff.)

Who has the cleanest record????

RON PAUL...he is America's only hope.

Joe,

Who do you support for president?

Obama has done a fine job as my senator from Illinois. He follows his own voice, and reflects my views. I probably will work on his campaign. But Hillary also has her roots in Illinois. I'd be happy with either, but I wish she'd be a little less snippy. I hope someone keeps the idiot GW in check until we can get rid of him.

Hillary is getting the positive attention for her husband, who is not so stealthily campaigning for a third term in the White House. Bill did not inhale, did not have sex with that woman, and calls his wife a world-class genius for helping people. Will we buy a president from this salesman?

Joe's post is emblematic of how much Hillary has hurt the democratic party. Hillary's relentless campaign to label Obama as "inexperienced" could lose us the whitehouse in 08.

The fact is, Obama has more experience than Hillary, more than Bill Clinton when he was elected, more than JFK, more than almost everyone on the republican side, and more foreign policy experience than any of the last 4 presidents when they were elected.

Obama also has a degree in international relations, law, taught constitutional law for 10 years, and has held elected office since 1996.

Obama is experienced, qualified, and a very good candidate.

That 39 percent undecided could easilly go to Al Gore!1

Gore in 2008!

I can't believe anybody would want to put the clinton dirty machine back in the whitehouse. I say go obama.

Other than the Doug Zook’s of this world who could support a person for president of the United States with virtually no experience running anything at all. Zero, zippo, nada…

Those of us who think of waterboarding as just an alternative interrogation technique, there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and there may not be global warming are up in arms against those terrible liberals. If we could only have Dick Cheney with a shotgun in his hands and Alberto Gonzales assuring us he has nothing to hide we could sleep peacefully tonight.

When Obama first announced he was running, it seemed like a long shot; now he has edged ahead of "the old guard" of the Clinton-Bush era; keep the momentum going!

Although I tend to vote more Republican than Democrat, Obama is someone I stand behind as a new leader. I do not agree with many of his issues, but like many others, just like the man and feel he is destined to be president because he is a true uniter.

I have nothing against Hillary, but I am SICK of the status quo of Clinton-Bush, ad nauseum. We NEED a fresh, new start and no one is better than Obama.

In 2008, we don’t need to choose the lesser of the evils; this time around, it’s the GOP voters who find themselves in that position. Democrats have a field of qualified, experienced, intelligent, viable candidates, while Republicans are scrambling to determine whose skeletons are least likely to fall out of the closet before the general election.

The Clinton campaign has made a big to-do about Obama’s supposed lack of experience, and his relatively short tenure in Washington, D.C.

Given the corruption that runneth over in the nation’s capitol, I’m not entirely certain that lack of years in Washington is a negative quality. In fact, I think it’s one of Barack’s strongest advantages.

Barack Obama is a candidate that the average American voter can relate to. He wasn’t born into wealth, or a political family, or big business. His mother and grandparents were from Kansas, his father a student from Africa, and he was born in Hawaii, a state known even in the tumultuous 1960s for its tolerance and acceptance of diversity. Like most of us, he went through a phase in which he partied and experimented with drugs, but ultimately his intelligence and drive led him on a path away from temptation and towards great academic success. He was the first African American editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He established himself as a civil rights lawyer, and taught at the University of Chicago. He got elected to the state legislature in Illinois, fighting for health care and welfare reform and an end to racial profiling by law officers. He won his U.S. Senate seat with 70% of the vote and became a household name after his moving speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

He didn’t spend eight years in the White House as the spouse of the President. He’s been in the Senate only four years shorter than Hillary. He didn’t tour the world as Hillary did in her role as First Lady, he lived abroad, in Indonesia. There’s something to be said of experience, the kind of experience that Senators Biden and Dodd have after decades in the Senate. But Hillary’s attacks on Barack’s experience are unfounded, particularly when her own experience is not so involved as she often makes it seem. There is a great deal to be said for real world experience, the kind that Barack had while Hillary’s husband (not Hillary) ran this country from 1992-2000. Indeed, Hillary has served in the Senate a few years more. But Barack has served as an elected official since 1997, and his understanding of the political process is every bit as developed as hers.

Real world vs. Washington experience is why I believe Barack is the best candidate for the Democratic nomination. Hillary has been in the public eye and Washington for 15 years, and with that comes a degree of protection that makes walking down the street impossible. Barack has spent more time, more recently, with everyday people. Before 2004, he was everyday people. His anti-lobbying stance has helped him elude the number of special interest friends and enemies the Clintons and other Washingtonian politicos have made.

I think Barack Obama is the candidate most likely to bring a fresh, untainted perspective to the presidency. We need that, in this day and age where all the friends in high places and experience cannot guarantee our safety from our enemies or a balanced budget. I’m tired of the old establishment. I don’t feel 20+ years of Bush and Clinton presidencies will bring about any significant degree of change in the way the rest of the world views our nation, or peace in the Middle East. If Hillary Clinton is such a foreign policy expert, why have many of Clinton’s advisors decided to lend their support to Barack Obama and not their former boss’s wife?

Hillary’s campaign has taken ugly turn after ugly turn since Obama’s recent surge in the polls, and I’m not a fan of Democrats who focus to much of their attack on their Democratic colleagues in the primaries. The big picture is, can you beat Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson? Many feel Hillary has the best chance because of her noteriety across America. I think she is vulnerable to attacks from the GOP that will make the Swift Boat ad look like child’s play.

Barack Obama conducts himself with a calm, collected, level-headed demeanor. He speaks openly and honestly, admitting to past mistakes like his drug use with a frankness Americans aren’t used to hearing from their leaders. He is a deliberate debator, and while many consider the pauses in his speech to be a sign of unpreparedness or stage fright, I believe he is the kind of candidate who likes to think about what he’s saying to you. He’s not spewing talking points hashed by a team of advisors and debate prep staff. He listens, he thinks, and then he talks. He doesn’t have the rapid-fire responses Hillary has, and I believe that helps him avoid damaging missteps in debates and Q&As.

I like that he’s young. I like that he’s new. I like his open-mindedness, his honesty, his sense of humor, his intelligence, his diverse background which has given him an original perspective. I like him, which is a lot more than I can say about many politicians in Washington.

Simply because I’m not supporting Hillary Clinton doesn’t mean I don’t want a woman in the White House someday. But America is at a critical junction, and so much is at stake in this election. I believe now isn’t the time to vote based on gender, race, or religion. It’s time to vote for a change. Out of the entire candidate pool, GOP and Democratic, I feel Obama is the one most likely to bring about change for our nation.

On February 5, 2007, in the Illinois primary, I will proudly cast my vote for Barack Obama, and I encourage each and every one of you to do the same.

Edwards is the most electable. He consistently beats the GOP candidates in head to head matchups.

What these voters "believe" doesn't jive with reality. Clinton and Obama are far less electable in a general election than Edwards.

But what do I know. I'm just a lowly political scientist.

I can hear it now: It all depends what you mean by losing.

jds,

Do you really think that teaching classes counts for experience? To make the statement that Obama has more experience than anyone on the Republican side is just plain stupid.

You must be a teacher or something to be so blind to the real world.

Such much have been said about Obama experience, but I am just curious to know whether people mistakingly believe Hillary has more experience just because she was a wife of a president! I view Obama as someone with a lot of great experiences and characters far greater than what Hillary has.
Hillary will not win any Republican candidate if she is nominated. So let give a shot at Obama.

Obama will make a good president. Let give him a try.

JOE!

You wrote the following:

"Do you really think that teaching classes counts for experience? To make the statement that Obama has more experience than anyone on the Republican side is just plain stupid.

You must be a teacher or something to be so blind to the real world."

I am extremely offended by you. To insult someone by calling them a teacher is just plain rude and completely ignorant. I would argue that you are the type of person that divides this country based on pure ignorance and stupidity. Oh, just a reminder...your guy...Doubleya....I think his wife was a teacher...

Did you vote for him??????

Who are all these Ron Paul spammers? After the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, I'm afraid they might be suicidal. They've deluded themselves into thinking he has a chance of winning. He doesn't.

I am an Independent. However, for 2008 I am leaning for Democratic candidates. I like Obama. I think Obama for President and Oprah for VP will b awinning ticket.

The party of George Soros & Michael Moore with such radical views, who could trust anybody from this party?

Posted by: Joe | December 23, 2007 11:17 AM

Joe...So radical, in fact, that virtually every other industrialized nation in the world, and some developing ones already apply them. Google universal health care for starters, and quit listening to hate radio.

No more rotten old politics of the Bush family and the Clintons as well! This country does not need a politician. It needs a savior who is not skilled at fooling people! Go Obama!

I wish all those people who voted for GWBush would show us that they learned from their experience and just stay home this time around.

But GW gets credit for two things. Colin Powell was a decent man, and Condoleeza Rice is someone who'll be remembered, despite her strange political allegiance. In light of GW's cabinet, isn't it a bit fraudulent for a Democrat to be claiming Obama can't win because he is black? A return to the exclusionary Southern Democrats of the 50's perhaps? I thought all those racists slid over to the Republican party during the Nixon years. I don't see how Obama could possibly be "rascist" (Jessica, 12:49pm) -- a fascist racist? -- since those are the people who are presumably most frightened by him, an interracial populist process-integrity consensus-builder. Or is Jessica voting for Hillary because of her Goldwater-Republican years? Hillary was a Goldwater girl, after all, before she got with the 60's. And Goldwater was the guy who snatched all those racist Southern Democrats into his primary electoral pocket. THANK GOD for LBJ. Was LBJ "attacking" Goldwater when he ran ads revealing that Goldwater was associated with the KKK? "Lyndon, Stop attacking me!"

Back to the positive. Did anyone know that LBJ's architect of the Great Society, which gave us Medicare, Public Broadcasting, Common Cause, Urban Coalition, Elementary and Second Education Act, ..., was a student for a few years at the same school that Obama attended? Seems there is a tradition of great national rebuilders coming out of that Punahou School...

The "down-Hill" slide continues, as evidenced in this breaking poll result from Zogby. I guess it's true, that you reap what you sow... isn't that so, Hillary-that-we-all-know?
--------------------------

"Only Obama Defeats all 2008 Republicans"

Barack Obama is the ONLY Democrat who can defeat ALL FIVE Republican presidential candidates in 2008, per the newest poll. John Edwards would defeat only three, and Hillary Clinton would defeat ONLY TWO -- Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.

Barack Obama:

Defeats Romney 53% to 35%
Defeats Huckabee 47% to 42%
Defeats Giuliani 48% to 39%
Defeats McCain 47% to 43%
Defeats Thompson 52% to 36%

John Edwards:

Defeats Romney 50% to 38%
Defeats Huckabee 47% to 41%
Is defeated by Giuliani 45% to 44%
Is defeated by McCain 46% to 42%
Defeats Thompson 51% to 35%

Hillary Clinton:

Defeats Romney 46% to 44%
Is defeated by Huckabee 48% to 43%
Is defeated by Giuliani 46% to 42%
Is defeated by McCain 49% to 42%
Defeats Thompson 48% to 42%

"Judging solely based on these poll results, Hillary Clinton is the weakest Democratic candidate against possible Republican 2008 nominees for the White House race."

(Poll was conducted from Dec. 12-14 with 1,000 likely voters.)

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1404

GO OBAMA!!!

WE NEED A PRESIDENT THAT DOESNT NEED A RACIST TV TALK SHOW HOST TO LEAD HIM BY THE NOSE! JUST SAY NO TO OBAMABOY

A FOX News poll released Thursday shows Hillary Clinton continues to have a significant lead over Barack Obama in the race for the Democratic Party’s nomination, despite being seen as the main candidate practicing dirty politics. Democrats explicitly say Clinton has the right experience and is a strong leader, and twice as many say Clinton rather than Obama can bring about needed change.
The national telephone poll was conducted for FOX News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from Dec. 18 to 19. The poll has a 3-point error margin.
Clinton receives the backing of 49 percent of Democrats, up from 44 percent last month, and Obama is at 20 percent today, down from 23 percent. John Edwards comes in third at 10 percent. All other Democratic contenders receive the support of 3 percent or less, and 12 percent are undecided.
To put Clinton’s current 29-point edge in perspective, looking back at the past six months her lead over Obama has been as wide as 32 points.
By 54 percent to 17 percent, Democrats are more likely to say Clinton is a "strong leader" over Obama, and she also gets the nod on having the "right experience" (67 percent to 8 percent). More than twice as many say Clinton can "bring about needed change," something Obama has been emphasizing for months and Clinton has more recently incorporated into her stump speech. 65 percent majority says Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Obama will make no difference to their vote, up from 54 percent in September. When it does factor in, it’s more likely to make voters less likely to support Obama than to encourage them to back him.
"After the initial flurry of excitement surrounding Oprah’s endorsement, it’s clear that the enhanced visibility she brought him is not really what Obama needed. He needed to convert that raw energy into hard votes. From the other results, it appears Clinton may have weathered Tropical Storm Oprah," stated Ernie Paicopolos, principal at Opinion Dynamics Corporation

I don’t care if you are insulted; I am insulted by 80 % of the postings on this blog. Constantly insulting the president and the USA.

That is the hate is in this country, Teddy Kennedy calling the president a liar and all the sheep that have echoed him. Never any shred of proof. That is insulting and the start of the hate and “the truth divide” in this country. Teddy, ‘the swimmer’, Kennedy is the point where this bitter state of hate and lies started.

As for teachers, few that I know have a clue how the real world works, liberal and naive is my assessment of the many that I have known over the years.

And the freedom of speech and thought applies to me also, if you don’t like my assessment, I don’t care.

It is sound and based on years of working with teachers and professors, at all levels.

It is the logical result, any structure that sets artificial protections against competition will ultimately lead to ineptness. The education system in this country is among the worst of the developed world. The NEA, the largest socialist organization in the world outside of communist China, is at the hart of the problem.

Joe,

Merry Christmas!

Let's pick it up Wednesday.

Dan,

That last post by me was intended to be directed towards you. Excuse the oversight.

To answer your question, yes I voted for GW, proud of it. A man of principle that recognizes what we face in the world from Moslem extremism, something that just seems to escape the liberal view of reality, a gaping flaw in their reasoning abilities.

Oh I don’t agree with everything he promotes but I don’t think anyone can deny all his successes. He is perhaps the most un-lame duck in modern times.

When the “rational” minds of historians look back on this presidency I think GW will be hailed as a great leader in most difficult times. And he will also be recognized as having the class to stay out of the mud with Kennedy, Carter, Murtha, Pelosi, and Reed.

Posted by: Joe | December 24, 2007 12:06 PM

Congratulations average Joe,

Thanks to you and the other "rational minds" in the flat-earth Wing of the Republican Party it looks like we'll be putting a Democrat in the White House on Jan 09 to clean up all of Prez Chimpy's messes.

George W. Bush finally managed to do something to help his country, although he took a tragically circuitous route.

A new survey indicates the radical policies and rank incompetence of the Bush administration are driving young voters away from the Republican Party in droves.

Forty-four percent of 18-to-29-year-olds consider themselves Democrats, while 23 percent identify with the Republican Party, according to a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll. It wasn't always this way: President Ronald Reagan won 59 percent of the youth vote in his 1984 bid for a second term.

``It cannot help your party if you're a Republican to have had many people come of age in an administration that has so botched so many enterprises,'' said Michael O'Hanlon, director of Opportunity 08, a broad study of the electorate by the Washington-based Brookings Institution.

Issues

Scott Keeter, director of survey research at the Washington-based Pew Research Center, which has done extensive polling of young voters, said the Bush administration's social- conservative positions don't resonate with those voters, who are more concerned about Iraq, global warming, health care and economic security.

The Republicans, he said, are finding it difficult ``to attract younger people who are not hung up on gay marriage and gay rights and immigration.''
A bittersweet victory, indeed. I would rather have a successful Republican president who unites America behind shared values and common goals than one (George Bush) who destroys much of his country on the way to destroying his party.

I believe now isn’t the time to vote based on gender, race, or religion.

Posted by: Paolo | December 23, 2007 5:30 PM

Jeez Paolo. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of the nonsense in your meandering harangue, but this gem really stands out and I can't let it go.

Since you're telling us that "now isn’t the time to vote based on gender, race, or religion" that infers that some votes should be based on gender, race, or religion... just not this particular one.

A lot of thoughtful moral people would disagree with that. For example, the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr (ever heard of him?) found your idea particularly offensive and anti-democratic forty-some years ago. He was right then and he'd be right today

Kucinich 2008!!!
Republicans have screwed up the country enough for now Joe. Oh, and Mickeal Moore uinoffically endorsed Kucinich a while ago in Newsweek or something. With the exception of Ron Paul all republicans will continue to lead us in the same dark direction Bush has. My choices:
1. Kucinich
2. Obama
3.Gravel
4. Biden
5. Edwards
6. Dodd
7. Richardson
8. Maybe Paul?
9. Clinton ???Maybe 8th
10. McCain

Give up on Gore. Its too late now.

To MJ,

Paolo did not in any way assert that it is sometimes the right thing to vote based on racists motivations. Your premise is laughably dishonest.

Paolo's lengthy, passionate, and heartfelt arguement in favor of Barack Obama's candidacy is obviously based on a desire for us all to do a useful thing by voting for someone who will move the country in a number of positives directions.

It seems that Obama has integrity and great political skill and has expressed meaningful and detailed policies on the key issues. There is plenty of evidence of good judgement, depth, wisdom, and the necessary experience. We need such a person in office at this time.

Go Obama!