I find it amusing how all the candidates have suddenly become the "candidate for change" since Obama's victory in Iowa. Laughable, really, as is Hillary's claim to experience through 35 years of change!

Quick quiz: who wrote the above article?

(a) Barack Obama
(b) David Axelrod, Obama's consultant
(c) Mike Tackett

Answer: (c). The article just sounds like it was written by (a) or (b).

"I'm running on 35 years of change..."

Yes, that's one thing that bothers me. Let's see, that's when she was in her mid-twenties. OK, volunteering at the Yale Child Study Center, working on McGovern's campaign. Fine. Good for her. Haven't we all done similar sorts of things?

And using the same yardstick, Obama has 21 years of change under his belt. OK, not as good, but that's not the dealmaker for Obama. And it's not going to be the dealmaker for Hillary either.

JFK said: "Experience is like tail-lights on a boat which illuminate where we have been when we should be focusing on where we should be going." That's what we should be doing - focusing on what comes next, and not making some ridiculous reference to volunteer work in your twenties trumping everything.

Absolutely Hillary Clinton can win! Hillary Clinton’s main competitor is Barack Hussein Obama. His radical muslim background really scares me! I think he frightens a lot of voters.

Hilary is a change agent for what??

What accomplishment she claim in her 8 years in White House - besides sleeping with a president?
Well, she did not do that job successfully either! Otherwise, we would not see Monica in Oval Office neither Clinton presidency tainted with impeachment!

Bush was a "likable" guy, but a good president????

Everyone is for change and a lot has to change. Richardson pointed out "what is wrong with experience?" Without experience, you end up repeating mistakes of the past. I want a president that has experienced both good and bad, victory and failure, because that is what truly makes a leader.

Hello,

You seem to have your finger on the pulse of the electorate. But the issue you raise strike me as are more complex than you were able to explore in your post.

By way of background, I never regarded Ms. Clinton as electable. Not only is she perceived negatively by somewhere between 40 and 50% of the electorate, most of those folks have an _intense_ dislike of her.

Moreover I never regarded Mr. Obama as unelectable. Whites don't feel threatened by the fact he's black, he doesn't make it an issue, and as people are starting to realize he can win over a broad range of people, including many independents and even some Republicans.

That said, getting one of them elected isn't worth much if they're unable or unwilling to govern in the way we Democrats might hope.

For example, if I'm wrong about Ms. Clinton's electability, and it's easy to be wrong in a case like hers where a few percentage points could make the difference, I fear she'll never be able to win over the public when she tries to get Congress on board with her policy initiatives.

No President can be effective without the support of Congress, and I doubt either party will enjoy a large majority in the House or the Senate.

The only way, then, for a Democratic President to govern effectively is to win over voters in districts that voted Republican in the general election. And I can't see Ms. Clinton having much success at that no matter what the issue might be given how divisive she is, wether that's her fault or not.

As for Mr. Obama, I think that he could be very successful winning over voters after the election as he campaigns for support of his policy initiatives. But that's in large part because he seems to be genuine about bringing together Democrats and Republicans, which would require him to compromise on many issues.

I confess that after 8 years of President Bush, I'm angry. I don't want to bury the hatchet, especially when it comes to investigating and prosecuting members of a lawless administration. I want to see justice done.

I don't see that as a partisan issue because many Republicans profess, at least, to have a deep respect for the Rule of Law. But I know it will be a partisan issue, and an explosive one as well.

I'm not confident any of the remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination would have the stomach to pursue those investigations and prosecutions to the fullest extent of the law, but I am confident that Mr. Obama does not.

So I'm torn.

Ms. Clinton vastly overstates her experience and is unwilling to release the records which would document it. She has limited political skills and it's unlikely she would be able to bring along a plurality of the public as she must to get anything done.

Mr. Obama understates the importance of experience, appears at times to be naive, and doesn't have a sufficiently long or broad track record that would allow me to predict with much confidence what he might be like as a President, in terms of policy at any rate. But he stands, by far, the better chance of being elected. Or at least, I think so.

I know many would disagree with me on some or even all of the points above. And that's fair.

But as a Democrat who's undecided, I don't often find my concerns reflected in the press. So I'm offering my thoughts to give you a data point in the hopes you'll pursue some of these questions with the people you meet in the course of your ongoing coverage of the primaries.

Best wishes,

Michael

I think Hillary is likable, but she has a big albatross on her neck that makes her unable to win, namely she is part of the Clinton administration and there are probably enough voters who are opposed to that prospect to defeat her candidacy. it's simple as that. And Bill, alleging to have said he can do every thing for her but make her younger, or taller is like the kiss of death. He is one of her worst enemies.

Osborne you are a deviant LIAR. Obama has ZERO Muslim background, he is a devout Christian and long-time attendee at Trinity Christian Church. The only thing frightening is a deviant like you, and Hillary is getting blown out of the water as we speak.

Hillary likable enough? Pardon me while I stifle my laughter. Hillary's likable if you also consider a barracuda to be likable. Ask Bill Clinton how likable she is. That is, if he'll for once in his life give an honest answer.

Michael Tackett writes, "Really? She never completes the thought and tells voters just how she has changed anything in those 35 years." Wow, this is really telling. When Mr. Tackett gets off the Clinton bandwagon, it tells you all you need to know about the future of her campaign.

Obama has consistently shown high intellect, good judgment, strong ethical consciousness. His resume is solid for someone whose mother was only two years older than Hillary. This does not mean Obama is too young but that Hillary is too old. Her present strategy is to return to what she is most experienced in, the old calculating politics of negative and destructive divide-and-rule Karl Rove-smear tear-downs. What hypocrisy from the Clinton Dynastic House that has been called the first black POTUS, and how damaging for the future of our republic. Her one choke-up moment this morning when she was asked who does her hair is clearly a cynical attempt to show a soft side and to get women to vote for her. She is playing the gender card so flagrantly that she has feminists like me all choked-up with shame and repulsion.

"AT&T SPEAKS" "VERIZON WIRELESS" SPEAKS

WE ARE LISTENING TO EVERY PHONE CALL, EVERY POLL STATION, EVERY LIVING ROOM, EVERY CAUCAS STATIONS, EVERY PRIMARY HOTLINE FOR DIRECTIONS TO YOUR NEAREST DEMOCRATIC PRECINCT.

WE CONTROL THIS ELECTION
WE CONTROL THE WAR
WE CONTROL IMMIGRATION
WE CONTROL IMMIGRATION REFORM
WE CONTROL THE GOP AND HAVE FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS SO. WHATCHUTALKIN ABOUT WILLIS.

OF COURSE SHE CAN WIN, IF WE LET HER.

* * * * *

Posted by: Osborne | January 7, 2008 11:03 AM

So what if Hillary Clinton can "win?" The most important question is: Can she lead?

We don’t need a political “winner.” We need a “leader” in the office of President in order to make our representative democracy work.

A lack of leadership skills is precisely why Duh’bya has been a dismal failure as President, rather than just an ordinary failure. He speaks, but doesn’t listen. Or, as Willard Romney put it, he uses the “It’s my way or the highway” approach to both foreign diplomacy and negotiations with Congress. He doesn’t communicate his ideas well, and he can’t seem to hire anyone to help him do a better job of it. He doesn’t obey the laws, the Constitution, or his own party’s traditional ideology; and he doesn’t otherwise exhibit any sort of personal integrity of the kind that inspires confidence or a willingness to cooperate in others. He can barely admit he makes mistakes, and only does so when he’s run out of wiggle room. Moreover, until recently, his record of appointing competent subordinates has been abysmal. Given his persistent failure in these and other, basic leadership skills, there is little to wonder (to paraphrase Mike Huckabee), that Duh’bya has a “bunker” mentality, and finds himself holed up in a constant state of siege. In short, Duh’bya is a perfect example of how giving someone authority merely puts them in charge, but doesn’t bestow leadership skills.

I may be wrong, but it appears to me that Hillary has similar problems. She doesn’t take criticism well, and she has been known to script her interactions with crowds. In fact, when faced with criticism from multiple Democratic rivals, she claimed they were “ganging up on” her, rather than simply answering them. As a sitting Senator, she has resorted to ordering around the President’s subordinates, rather than attempting to negotiate with or even addressing her demands to the White House. She is long on promises, but short on details as to how she plans to carry out all of her grandiose schemes. This is a serious problem in light of the fact that, as a country, we are allready deeply in debt. She passes off all the details onto an imaginary “committee” she will convene to work out the answers she can’t even hint at now. This is how she responded to questions regarding the odious “personal mandate” portion of her proposed “universal health care” plan.

I also have trouble with her inability to stay herself, and not resort to chameleon-like artifices. I am distinctly reminded of the time she met with a group of black women in Selma, Alabama and affected what can be best described as southern “cornbread” patois when speaking to them. See

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8791725997638883023&q=hillary+clinton+selma+alabama+voice&total=1&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

And now we see how she has resorted to crocodile tears and making emotional appeals. See

http://www.newsweek.com/id/85609

To me, this behavior is just too manipulative to bear.

Now, you might be able to explain away all of this stuff to your own satisfaction, and that is your right. But I have trouble believing she has either the personality or leadership skills to inspire everyone (or even just Democrats) to make the country move in the right direction. And just remember, we could soon be in for some very hard times in both foreign and domestic affairs without a good leader in the White House. That should give anyone reason to exercise a lot of caution.

Osborne, Thank you for giving voice to the concerns of all those Americans who are too biased or too ignorant to read the newspaper or do a little research on the internet and find factual information about the candidates. One of the blessings of our Democracy is that people as lazy as you are seldom vote.

Osborne,

Let me see. I wonder if I'm a Muslum also. Unfortunately, my name doesn't quite sound "Muslum" enough, so I went to wordsmith.org/anagram to see if they could help me. After entering my name, I was immediately "converted!" I now go by Annu el Admi Mohammed. Got a nice ring to it, eh?

Peace be onto you.