Working, uneducated voters are what Senator Clinton is relying on. And if they can't show up, she'll 'cry' foul. She has gone back to ARROGANT mode. She cried because she thought she was gonna loose, NOT because she cared about the country. Obama will wax her in NV, and stomp her in SC. He is waiting until SC to give more substance before going national. The problem is too many Americans are ignorant of the issues and have a knee-jerk reaction to 'liberals'. Obama has to dumb it down, or people will get confused. Style is the doorway to substance.

Obviously women are disenfranchised in a caucus system and that is a big reason why Clinton lost Iowa but won in NH. Most women with children have to take care of them in the evening and cannot caucus. If my state was a caucus state I am quite sure that daddy would caucus and mommy would stay home.

How someone who doesn't understand English can have a clue what a candidate is talking about and then make an informed decision and vote. That puzzles me.

Too many "people" in Washington despise Hill/Bill especially republicans but also some democratics(expect more senator endorsements of Obama in the days ahead). If Hillary is elected they will spend all their time trying to derail everything she tries to accomplish. On the other hand, experience or not, they seem to genuinely like Obama. Obama is very smart and maybe, just maybe, everyone will work together to get something done to benefit us all.

She's sinking in stature fast. What a faker and a whiner. In contrast Obama behaves as a mature adult and should win through to ultimate victory.

"""Obviously women are disenfranchised in a caucus system and that is a big reason why Clinton lost Iowa but won in NH. """"

The pollsters all say it was OLDER women who showed up for Hillary, above what they were polling; not younger women with Children.

Hillary always had more then a 10 point lead in NH until the pollsters used the Iowa results to weight their surveys, thus throwing off the results and giving Hillary a 'comeback'.

The fact is she was supposed to win by more then ten points for over a year and that didn't change until Iowa and the pollsters adding more independents to their surveys. She ended up squeaking out a 3 point victory.

Also, due to the change in dates of the primary, college students weren't even back in the state from the break - talk about being disenfranchised (Hillary didn't complain about them though, since that group went heavily for Obama).

The Clinton war machine is non stop. Watch what they do in the coming months to the other democrats in the race. Remember, Senator Clinton has no record of accomplishments for the voters of New York or in the Senate. 35 years of riding Bubbas coat tails don’t make you qualified to lead Senator Clinton.

Barack Obama gives inspirational speeches, but it would be nice if he would use his oratorical talents to persuade his senate colleagues to do or not do something he thinks is critically important to our country.

He missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote and then went on to tell us how important that vote was.

When he has some actual senatorial achievements under his belt, he could well be unstoppable in his quest for the presidency.

But, first things first.

He has to have achieved something, done something -- something more than local community work.

If local community organizing and volunteering were really the ticket to the White House, you would be calling me Madame President.

She is a nightmare and no role model for any woman.

Vote Obama.

Sore loser!!! Lets hope it continues

Feminism has taken a step backwards with Clinton Part Deux. This is nothing more than dynastic politics. What exactly makes her more qualified that Obama? Informally advising on a failed health care plan while her husband was president? Working as a corporate lawyer while he was governor?

She has fought and won fewer elections than Obama, not to mention his valuable experience on the ground as a community organizer and civil rights litigator and constitutional law professor. Just ask the steelworkers in Chicago whether he knows how to bring real change to real people.

And then there are the dirty tactics by Clinton and her surrogates. Clearly they're afraid of competing head-to-head, so in Iowa and New Hampshire they distribute last-minute fliers full of false claims about Obama after it's too late for him to respond. Just one of many examples that has gone underreported in the press. (Think again if you believe the coverage has been completely pro-Obama and anti-Clinton!)

Clearly the Clintons learned a trick or two from the rightwing smear machine and have started to act the same way. Obama has more integrity in his little finger than Clinton Part Deux has in her whole body.

"Change" to a democrat means things will be different, not better, in the future as follows:
Record high unemployment
Economic depression
Stock market collapse
20% per year inflation
Regular terrorist attacks
Fully open borders
Unlimited benefits for illegals
Collapse of the social security system
Rationed health care
$6 to $8 per gallon gasoline
Suppression of free speech
Confiscation of firearms
Most companies moving offshore
Acceleration of jobs moving out of the country
Government policies as in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and Iran
The Europeans will like us.

That is the kind of change the democrats are really seeking.

HC: "You have a limited period of time on one day to have your voices heard," Clinton, D-N.Y., said. "That is troubling to me. You know in a situation of a caucus, people who work during that time -- they're disenfranchised. "

Oh, but it's OK for her party to disenfranchise an entire state like Michigan and strip ALL of it's delegates because the state's party doesn't bow to the national's party's wishes on when to hold the STATE primary. Gimme a break.

It is only fair if she wins--otherwise people are shut out --except if they were bused in to stuff the box then it is okay. Espesially if they do not speak english so they do not understand what the candidate is saying. Be afraid -be very afraid.

Hillary is the worst thing that could possibly happen to this country.

What a waste of time she is.

We should all put our focus elsewhere.

I went to BO church website and what I saw was very SCARY stuff indeed. Thanks for posting the church's address.

Interesting....how about in a Caucus Hillary cannot have her cronies manipulate the vote...it was interesting how so heavily an underdog in NH she comes out on top when there is a way to mess with the vote results?!?! Kucinich is asking for a recount because it is a 2% margin of victory...anyone at ABC gonna carry that story?

You can't fabricate results in a caucus, unlike with voting machines or ballots.

If you want to vote for a QUALIFIED ex-first lady, then you need to support Nancy Reagan! At least she was acting president for a couple of years!

Seriously, without Bill, Hillary is a sham. She has NO real leadership experience, and has achieved very little in the Senate. So, as far as experience, she and Obama are pretty much equal as I see it.

HRC's a divider. Half the nation hates her guts already. Do we want to continue down this road? Limbaugh's ratings will skyrocket if she is elected. Obama is a uniter. If you want to see the continued partisanship in this nation, vote Hillary. If you want a new approach, that brings people and parties together, vote Obama or McCain.

It must be wonderful to be able to declare what is 'fair' or 'unfair' based solely on one's own personal interests and to have a doting, nearly mindless scribe record and promulgate such pronouncements as if they are actually 'news.'

Sen. Clinton is a fatuous, self-serving, hypocritical, equivocator of the worst sort; a person I wouldn't trust to walk my dog much less lead this country.

And Sen. Obama is a pretty face, with not much substance behind it. His lack of experience at the national and international level of governance are stunning...and what's even more stunning to me is that he is a serious contender for the most difficult and important political position on the planet.

At a time when our enemies are attacking -- both overtly and covertly -- on a broad front we need a tough-minded, philosophically unequivocal and focused person to lead, to pick a hard-core group of advisers who are pragmatic and without compassion toward those who would harm us and, or our national interests.

Where are the Ayn Rand political objectivists when we need them? One place they most assuredly are not in is the modern, Left-leaning Democratic Party.