we are better to go for hillary because she want change and exp.. to she and the politic for over 30 year she know better
you want a name obama for president plus he has a big mouth and know nothing yet his and the white house for 2 year only

If you don't like a candiate, you should come up w/ a better argument than making personal attacks. The voters took a look at Hillary in Iowa and decided they did not like her. They make come to a different conclusion in N.H. but it seems to me that people are just tired of the same old attacks and games that she plays.

If you don't like a candiate, you should come up w/ a better argument than making personal attacks. The voters took a look at Hillary in Iowa and decided they did not like her. They make come to a different conclusion in N.H. but it seems to me that people are just tired of the same old attacks and games that she plays.

Its time for change, Hillary doesnt represent change but a dynasty. 'Yesterday' it was Bush and his son, now its Bill Clinton and his wife, what new ideas will she bring except recycling her husband's policies which is what her experience represents! Washington needs a new face, new administration, new order and a new way of doing things.

Iowa voters never nomineted a candidate who can win the white house.

Change is the issue. All candidates seem to want it. But it can only be achieved if Republicans and Democrats can come together and pass the legislation needed. The Clinton's are polarizing figures, just like the Bush's. Ask yourself this question -- Do you really think Hillary Clinton can bring the two parties together. I don't think she can, which means she will not be able to create change. Experience (although I also question her level of experience) is not enough. What we need is someone who can build a consensus and I truly believe that Obama is the only candidate on both sides of the aisle that can achieve the unity required for change.

I agree that the Iowa caucus is more about flushing out candidates that are not viable than picking the next President of the United States. However, they have been successful in picking the eventual party nominee (John Kerry, Al Gore, Walter Mondale, Bob Dole, and Jimmy Carter) and they have been successful in picking the president in recent years (George W. Bush). So I wouldn't take it so lightly. I think the more striking take away is not Obama winning, but Hillary finishing third. She is not a consensus builder. Republicans do not like her. She will not be able to unite the parties, which will result in another stagnant government. That's why Obama is the Change Candidate.

I beg your pardon Robert, I do remember comments from Republicans, including Newt, that they enjoyed working on projects with Clinton using such words as "Intelligent", "hard working", "Open minded" and "considered both sides". With the mess the next President has to clean up, I believe she is the one that can do it best. She is a lot more than a cheerleader.

The news coverage of the campaign in this country is shameful! When you have no job, no health insurance and no prospects are you really concerned with a candidate's, PEFORMANCE? That, in itself, suggests something other than, shall we say, sincerity. Yes, Joe / Mary Blow, the candidate, must SHOW how much he cares about the plight of the middle class in this country - even though, in reality, he / she does not give a #### about the people he / she is pretending to care about! One of the these old days soon, the news media, the government, the lobbysists... are going to be in for a real surprise and THAT DAY IS COMING!

The fact is in this that we need someone in the White House who isn't can not only change Washington politics but someone who will be respected around the world. It's time for us to repair our image with a president who is wiling to respect other heads of states and speak the them directly rather than sending "envoys". It's time for change. I admit that I was skeptical about whether Obama could win the party nomination but Iowa has made me a believer.

I can't believe all the comments. I also can't believe how nieve so many democrates are. Obama got a "free ride". Why has no one questioned the fact that he opposed the war ... yes....but was in a State senate where he represented an extremely progressive and liberal district who would totally was against the war. Nothing brave about his opposition. He critized Clinton for her vote concerning the Iranian military but he DIDN'T EVEN VOTE. What's that about. It's about him making vague excuses when he didn't have the courage to cast vote. If it is so important that he has brought it up in debates over and over "why wasn't he there to vote and let the American people know his position"? The fact is that he opposed the war when it was easy for him to do so and he was absent form voting when he could have shown the people where he stood when he actually is a U.S. Senator. But ..... he didn't have the courage to do that. He has gotten such a free ride and there is NO DOUBT that his insurance plan DOES leave out 15 million .... as Edwards campaign only now is pointing out. To go for CHANGE instead of EXPERIENCE at this point in the history of our country is rediculous. Is that the person you'd put your money with if you were investing?????? The new broker on the block or the one who has a track record of success? It's not necessary to get personal .... but it is necessary to look at the record and see who has been most successful in getting things done. Go ahead and look .... or are you afraid to do that?

If Obama supporters were allowed to boo her while she was speaking and his campaign did not immediately step in to stop them, isn't that reason enough not to vote for the man. Chances are his campaign even orchestrated it. Not worthy of an American president.

Robert Iowa has only picked the nominee four times and never picked anyone for the Dems who went on to win the presidency. Jimmy Carter was not picked by Iowa the year he took the white house. He lost to undecided.

Sorry after reading the article again it seems quite clear that the Obama supporters were orchestrated and marshalled to do their little display. This will not be lost on experienced democrats and the booing will not impress.

Clinton, in her speech immediately following her crushing defeat in Iowa, confirmed my suspicions that she's an arrogant fool. She didn't graciously acknowledge the winner, she just kept right on talking down to the little people, as she always does. This morning, she decided to unjustly criticize the military yet again, stating that she requested plans for a US withdrawal from generals, and did not receive much of an answer. For having been in government as long as she has, she knows full well that generals only answer to the President, their commander in chief. It's called a chain of command, and she knew this full well. Mrs. clinton needs to stop being a deceitful liar and should retire altogether from politics. Her mileading statements about the generals today open her to lawsuit liabilities for slander, and given the clintons are already in legal hot water, this could add another round of misery. If I were one of the generals in question, I'd be sending someone to serve her right this minute.

It never seizes to amaze me how people will try and pick on the most mundane of issues like the 'booing' issue to try and attack a candidate! I do not honestly see how a candidate can prevent over-excited supporters from performing such spontaneous acts, and besides I do believe that the offending individuals were requested to desist from such acts and they did so. i do think that there are a lot of important pressing issues pertaining to the 08 race and people would best be served if we were to channel our energies debating these!

Sorry Southeast, but no one can convince me that Hillary is a consensus builder. The Clinton's are polarizing figures in our political landscape. Change can only happen if a consensus builder is elected. I think Obama is that guy, but the other candidates may be able to a fine job as well. All of them except one -- Hillary Clinton. How anyone can think otherwise hasn't been watching the last fifteen years (or maybe its just wishful thinking). I come from New York. Hillary has been a good senator and I believe she is more than just a cheerleader, but I would not call her a consensus builder. Maybe it has more to do with her last name, than her own character. Either way, Republicans will not get on board with her. There may be some exceptions (you will always find an exception) but the rule will result in a stalemate.

My mistake on Carter regarding the Iowa Caucus, but I only wanted to point out that the results should not be entirely dismissed. I'm sure if Hillary had won, they would be trumpeting the results. In fact, I'm positive that Hillary supporters would not be pointing out the failures of Iowa if their candidate had won. As I mentioned, I think Iowa tends to flush out less viable candidates rather than predict the next president. But they did pick our current President and they have shown more success in at least getting the nominee right.

Who in their right mind wants Clinton? How can any of you Clinton supporters really thing that she is in our best interest? Think about it -- Bush, then Clinton, then Bush, then Clinton. Who comes after Hillary, Jeb? Please make it stop!!! Vote for anyone else....as long as their name doesn't end with Clinton or Bush.

My husband and I are neither Clinton nor Obama supporters (John Edwards is our candidate), but both of us are appalled to read of Obama supporters' behavior during Clinton's speech.

It says something VERY negative about Obama's character that he didn't publicly and forcefully condemn such behavior, either at the beginning of his own speech immediately after Clinton's -- or even while the chanting and booing was going on.

Both Clinton AND Obama are Democrats, for pity's sake -- save the negative behavior for real enemies!