Hillary is a change candidate? That's a joke! No more Bush! No more Clinton! Don't be part of the problem people! Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush... BO is slightly differet than Clinton. They are both socialists, but the democrat party in general is a socialist party now, so any vote for a democrat is a vote for socialism. the republicans used to be conservative, but no longer. Either way I don't see much that impresses me from either party. I promise though, if Hillary receives the candidacy of the democrat party I will vote for any candidate other than her. Even an Obama Nation would be better than a Clinton nation.

What????? The CHANGE candidate is EDWARDS. Obama isn't ready and Clinton means change back to where we were in the Clinton yrs. Real change comes from the man with a new and clear vision for America. A place where the people have a voice not the lobbyist. I don't know about you but I want a voice in my future and my childrens future.
Edwards for REAL change.

Hillary who boasts that she suffers from an excessive responsibility gene with respect to her own expectations of herself apparently doesn't appear to expect that same personal responsibility from some persons or groups. She didn't expect it from her husband, and her book (It Takes a Village) suggests that everyone should be responsible for childrearing; but if everyone is responsible, then no one is really responsible. That's why it takes two parents. Hillary would be too divisive for the country. Politically she is popular in many quarters, but personally she's no role model. If you are mature enough to give fidelity you should be mature enough too expect fidelity. If you are mature enough to be personally responsible yourself, you should be mature enough to expect personal responsibility from others. But this is the trade off, Hillary thinks that she can be responsible for someone else. Why? She's politically savvy, but too emotionally needy -- I only count when I do for others. We don't need this. We need someone balanced whose got their heart and their head on straight. The country needs someone who can unite everyone and have appropriate expectations that together we all are collectively responsible to address the chickens that are coming home to roost - the war, terrorism, healthcare, medicare, social security, etc. I am a moderate Republican who never voted for George W. Bush, and who will be supporting John Edwards.

She invited the Iowa voters to kick the tires on her car. I think they are retreads from her husbands years. No change more of the same. Obama is an outsider looking in. He doesn't command the guns to enforce change in Washington.

She still be happy for her husband good record. How about her husband bad record ????????? Are you running for your husband ? Are you afraid he looking for another girlfriend ? Sorry we are tired , scandal everywhere , no that is not America. WE need happiness and She can not bring it .

For some reason I don't trust Obama. I can't quite figure out what it is, or put my finger on it, but I think he is really effected performer. Saying that you're a "change" is meaningless, big whop de doo. What does that mean?

Sandra, I would suggest that you go to the barack website and read up on all of the plentiful details he has provided and you'll see what "change" means.

Sandra...........Senator Obama will mean a change from the liars and blamers we have had leading this country for the past sixteen years. A leader who will listen to sound advice and act in the best interest of the country. A leader who will not sell the beds in the whitehouse for political donations. A leader who will not blame others for policy failure's (healthcare,education) Issues Ms> Clinton had the lead on when she was the co-president. Above all I do not beleive he an Ms. Obama will lead the country thru eight (8) years of deceit,telling lies and blaming others. The Clinton's are like the Bush" they need to go away. I pray the country does not repeat the mistakes we made during the past (16), years.

Obama HAS the experience where it counts. What other candidate has travelled extensively abroad, much less LIVED abroad for any period of time?

With America's reputation in tatters around the globe and the Clintons' foreign policy just a shadow of the NeoCons, Obama is the answer.

Whoever said JFK "wasn't experienced enough"? Aren't we overdue for new ideas, new fresh leadership (after two decades of Bush/Clinton!) and original thinking, free of the partisanship that has gripped our politics since the Reagan era?

Enough is enuff. Obama '08 - do something great!

True, if the war goes on, or even worse we invade yet another country (like Iran or Pakistan) if Hillary or Obama get their way, we will have a draft. This is very real, very serious kids. Unless you want to have your futures predetermined for you by being sent off to find pointless wars you better be paying attention to this election. Ron Paul is the ONLY Candidate who both voted against this unfounded and unconstitutional war from the beginning, and still stands for getting our fighting men and women out of this war. He has more funding for his campaign from our serving men and women than any other candidate. So how's that for supporting the troops?
We need to take our country back, strong military sure, but to protect US here on the homefront. Ron Paul has proven time and time again his unwavering and principled strict obedience to the Constitution. He has stressed that he is against entangling alliances with other nations. He is America's Last Hope!

Sorry to tell ya Texbork:

But Edwards is CFR also. Do your research man!

All the flowery words about hope and change fail to alter the fact that his man has insufficient experience to be president. He has gotten caught up in his own hype which will make it difficult for him to run again in the future. My advice - relax Barak. Get some real experience and pay some dues and come back in a few years. The Office will be yours.

Bush, Clinton,Bush, NO to another

Clinton...the "fresh change" is Barak

Obama....enough with the DC insiders

club.

Obama should be judged by the company he keeps; for Bush, it was Enron's Kenny-Boy Lay. For Obama, it was Tony Rezko, recently arrested in a $6 million kickback scheme to stuff Illinois government positions with "his" people. Obama knew this guy for 17 years, and not once did he question Rezko's slumlord record, although it was public knowledge at the time. He kept taking his $$$. That says alot about Obama - he's a product of the Chicago machine, and his image-maker David Axelrod is also tied to that crowd. They all come with baggage; the difference is that Hillary seems to have a more in-depth understanding of the complex international and domestic issues that face this country and will actually do something about them. With her, I'll feel more secure and more hopeful about the future of this country of ours, with billions in trade deficits, Social Security on the verge of collapse, our currency in the toilet and no jobs to speak of.