To RexWrecks:

IMO, the only thing that was 'blown' was most of the pollers' credibility.

Obama's 'big lead' was artificial, an 'illusion' created by the polls, and pundits. SFAIK, he made no serious blunders, had a good organization, and executed his game plan.

Obama had to come from way behind in NH. It was Clinton's "firewall" state. This state has been very kind to the Clinton's over the years, and they are very well connected to the political establishment there.

In hindsight, I'm impressed that he lost by only 2 or 3 points. And, given how they changed the ballot from past years, which favored Clinton, it has been argued by some that the result was a tie.

But, what is important here is, especially for those who lean to or are Democrats, is who can win in 2008. Independents and cross-over Republicans are likely crucial for a win, and their support will be a great asset to the winner.

Obama has demonstrated far more appeal to these groups than Clinton. In fact, if Clinton is the nominee, the Republican base will be fired up, and will likely donate far more money to their candidate than if Obama is the nominee.

My experience is that the dislike of the Clintons, fair or unfair, among many is deep, long-standing, and will be hard to charge. By contrast, most either like Obama or are at least neutral or only mildly negative.

That could make a big different in a presidential race, and in leading a country, which is crying out for it, and so urgently needs it.

--George

MidRepub said: "Stick to the issues."

Excellent advice.

I have seen here and elsewhere people say or suggest that Obama has no plans, no experience, and no accomplishments. I think nothing could be further from the truth.

May I first direct you to his Website, which is full of detailed plans for our future. He has assembled one of the very best set of advisors I have ever seen.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

IMO, one of Washington's biggest problems is the undue influence of lobbyists and special interests; another, is lack of transparency. The two are related.

Obama has tacked both. I quote:

"His first law was passed with Republican Tom Coburn, a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent."

Along with Russ Feingold, his bill, which was passed by the Senate, was one of the toughest ethics and lobbying reform bills Congress has since Watergate.

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/ethics_an...

Another big issue for me is 'loose' nukes. These could be used for a dirty bomb or worse. Obama took action on that.

"Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with Republican Dick Lugar to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world."

Just some his many accomplishments.

--George

"Please kindly do not make a Freudian slip and call me WorkingMonny."

It wasn't a "Freudian slip". It was a slip made by an older set of eyes reading a 'tiny' typeface incorrectly.

Sorry for the error. But, I will assure you there was no bad intent in mind.

BTW, I do make typos. One of my New Year's Resolutions was to do my best to cut down on them. Obviously, I have more work to do her. -wink-

--George

"Hillary may have stolen the primary election in New Hampshire. "

I think this is highly improbable. While I think the Clinton campaign has done many things that I wish they had not done, I very seriously doubt they did anything here. The downside is just too big.

But, electronic voting machines do have potential issues. At a minimum, they should produce a paper copy, which the voter can check, and either can or will be optically scanned.

Electronic only voting has more risk involved than I would like to see, and am not happy that some parts of the country have adopted such systems.

I think what happened in NH is the undecided, mostly woman's vote, broke heavily to Clinton. Why, I can't say; although, there has been much speculation on this topic. Clinton may have just done a better job getting her vote out, too.

In hindsight, Obama did pretty well here. The Clinton's have longstanding support in New Hampshire. It was their "firewall" state. Given where he was in the polls a month or two ago, a 2 to 3% loss isn't all that bad.

--George

To WorkingMonny3:

You said: "I am puzzled by George? Such hatred, such insecurity with hardworking women who need to work to support their families."

I'm puzzled, too. I don't hate Hillary Clinton, and I most certainly don't hate hardworking women. Where did you come up with that, please?

And, I don't understand where your "insecurity" comment is coming from either.

Trust me, I am not being any harder, or gentle on Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. I would be just as willing to point out issues I have if she were a man. IMO, that is exactly how it should be -- we need to be fair here.

And, we have learned, the hard way, just how important the choice of who is President is. This country is slipping. 70 to 74% of us recently polled think the country is on the wrong path.

This is serious. We need to take a very close look at all these candidates including their past records, and how they conduct themselves and their campaigns. That is exactly what I have been doing, and will continue to do.

--George

To WorkingMonny3:

For the record, Barack Obama has more years of experience in elected office than Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps you are counting Washington experience only. If voters wanted that, they would have gone with Biden and Dodd, who are now withdrawn from the race.

The past four of our five Presidents had *no* Washington experience, including Reagan and Clinton. Cheney and Rumsfeld had many, and look where they got us.

What we need is good judgment more than anything else. And, nothing could be more important that the life and death decision of going to war. Here Obama's good judgment prevailed. He was against the Iraq war from the start, for the right reasons.

By contrast, Clinton jumped on the Bush's then popular political bandwagon, gave hawkish speeches, failed to read a critical report, voted against the Levin amendment, and voted to authorize the biggest blunder this country has made since Viet Nam.

And, she seems to not have learned her lesson, recently voting for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment -- something all other Democrats running for President opposed.

Folks, it's time to turn the page, and vote for a uniter, not a divider.

Obama'08

For those of you who might be torn between Clinton and Obama, I refer you to this excellent article written by David Brooks of the New York Times, dated Dec 18, 2007, titled "The Obama-Clinton Issue".

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinio...

For those of you who might care about how we look to the rest of the world, here is an excellent article in "Newsweek", Fareed Zakaria, dated Dec 24, 2007, titled "The Power of Personality"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78157

BTW, I do care about how we look. How we look affects both our security and our pocketbooks.

--George

To DonnaT:

The head of the NH Obama campaign was a state lobbiest, and not national -- big difference.

Clinton accepts money from national lobbiests, Edwards and Obama do not -- big difference.

As for the article "that broke" on ABC, did you come up with that characterization or did you see someone else call it that?

This is very old news which has been thoroughly investigated and discussed elsewhere. The only thing that "broke" is that this was the first time (at least according to some) it was discussed on ABC News.

You also characterize Obama's dealings as "illegal". Where did you come up with that notion, please? Nowhere have I ever seen any mention of anything done illegally.

This is very old news, folks. Here's a link to a Nov 5, 2006 (over a year ago) article on the subject posted on the Chicago Sun-Times website:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/12...

I caution all voters to carefully scrutinize what you hear about the candidates. A lot of 'mud' is going to be thrown in the few weeks.

What you can count on is my posts will be based on quality news sources, and I will include links so you can find out for yourself. I hope others will back up their comments the same way, please.

--George

Jackie,

Perhaps there is a 'risk' with Clinton, too, one greater than with her opponents, and that is her high negatives with the American people.

A December episode of NBC's "Meet the Press" showed a poll which had Clinton's popularity at 42% positive, and 44% negative. Another major poll in 2007 had her at 50% negative.

For a major candidate to have a negative rating higher than positive is unheard of.

Plus, there is the matter of winning a general election, and not just Democratic primaries. A December Zogby poll showed Obama as the only candidate winning against all five likely Republican nominees. Edwards lost to two; Clinton, to three.

To the Democrats: you have lost two elections. Do you want to risk losing a third, in a year when it should be an easy win?

Please go with the nominee who is most likely to be supported by Independents and cross-over Republicans. Go with the nominee who is most likely to get support from the largest majority of the public, because only by having done so will we be able to overcome the special interests who have largely taken over Washington.

Obama'08

--George

You might also ask Senator Clinton why her campaign mailed a letter in New Hampshire criticizing his record in Illinois on a woman's right to choose, please.

What the letter pointed out was he voted "present" in some of the pro-choice/pro-life votes. What it doesn't explain is why, which is Illinois Planned Parenthood asked him to do so.

Furthermore, there are many valid reasons to vote "present" in the Illinois Senate. The Clinton campaign information did not give any of these reasons.

You might also ask her why her campaign is using smear tactics against Obama, grossly distorting his record using misleading information. I would expect to see this done by some Republicans, but never by one Democrat against another.

I'm very sorry to see this happen.

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/pol...

See:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/ob...

--George