Senator Clinton did an excellent job during the debate and post-debate. Let's hope people are reading and listening with their heads and their hearts. We need a competent President who does not need OJT and who does not make excuses.

This must be the biggest episode of Fear Factor. John McCain refuses to debate Mike Huckabee!
Why? He says he is an American hero. McCain says He has won this nomination. Ok, yes he is an American hero. But this race is a long way from the end. If He is so sure that he has won this nomination, why does he refuse to debate his biggest rival? The only answer is that he is afraid if the American people hear another message, he won't win the nomination. This is a travesty of justice. Shutting out the message of the only other viable candidate, is un- American. John McCain and the network media seem to have forgotten what the definition of American Hero is: Giving your all for the benefit of your country with out first thinking of yourself. John McCain and every news network that has crowned him king before the end of the race (receiving 1191 pledged delegates) are circumventing the fair and balanced election process by blocking the message of other viable candidates. The only reason for doing this is because you are all afraid that if McCain debates Mike Huckabee the voters might hear a different message than you want them to hear, and there goes your coronation!
McCain should start acting like an American hero and debate Mike Huckabee before March 4, 2008!
We need to cut out lobbyists on Capital Hill. There are 3 lobbyists for every Congressman. The lobbyists do not represent constituents. They represent special interest groups. We don't need a president who relies on lobbyists to run his campaign. Mike Huckabee is what we need to revitalize this country. He knows how to work hard and get the important things done like lowering taxes, improving education and roads. He will protect our national sovereignty and strengthen our military. And He also knows we have to have fun too. He knows we need to have creativity, imagination & ingenuity. Let's elect someone with real governing experience. Let's elect someone who has proven he can balance a budget and is not in debt. Let's elect a true fiscal and social conservative. Don't let media and Washington insiders tell us how to vote, just to line their own pockets. Let's elect Mike Huckabee. Hang in there Mike, we need you! Texas, Ohio, Vermont, & Rhode Island we are counting on you keep the ball rolling clear through to the Convention! ! VOTE HUCKABEE!!

DCVoter, what was Clinton's excuse for voting for the war in Iraq? Oh yeah, Bush duped her. I'm sorry, but I refuse to vote for anyone that can be duped by Bush.

Hillary is confusing voters with her double talk about Iraq. If she's such an expert why did she vote for it in the first place? So now she wants to scare us into thinking only she is wise enough to handle it. Please, let's just all get her to quit now and end the charade.

She said: "Meet Me In Ohio" at the same time during the debate, she was complaining being the first person to be asked a question.
This woman is full of contradictions. I wonder some people can not realise this!

I support Senator Obama and I didn't care for Senator Clinton's behavior either but the media is having a field day with her now and they are coming across as a bully. Doesn't matter if she went after them first because it is a lot of them and only one of her. Senator Obama forgave her so we can too. She is already down folks. Stop kicking.

Obama did not vote and did not have the data to review so his opinion on the vote is irrelevant. His opinion on war agrees with Senator Clinton's letter to GWB that the authorization was for military support of UN inspectors and not approval to enter into a pre-emptive war. The unwarranted invasion of Iraq was wrong and both democratic candidates agree. Please take the time to get your facts correct and stop allowing the MSM, Obama, and Republicans to mislead you as to what the real facts are.

On the other point, I agree McCain is being a coward by not agreeing to a debate the same way Obama was a coward by not agreeing to one-on-one debates prior to Wisconsin and other primaries. If a candidate cannot handle one-on-one debates with other Americans and be responsible enough to present themselves in that forum for the benefit of the voters, how can we expect them to be capable of handling one-on-one meetings with allies and/or potential enemies?

I understand your misgivings if you think people were "duped". I think the world was mislead with lies. Our Congress was mislead with more lies than we were! I don't consider trying to support, have faith, and believe in a president and his administration is the sme as being duped. Only he knows the reasons he lied. Even Senator Obama stated in 2003 that he does not know how he would have voted since he did not have all the information (he was not a US Senator at the time with clearance) and stated in 2004 that he agreed with GWB's handling of the war at that time (before if became public knowledge that GWB and his administration lied). So if you think Senator Clinton was duped then so was Senator Obama. I guess you will be voting for Nader. LOL

DCVoter, where could I find the quote of Obama in 2004 when he agreed with GWB's handling of the war? I didn't know this and I doubt any Obama fans know it!

Fact Checkers found:

"July 27, 2004, quote in the Chicago Tribune, in which Obama did indeed say of the Iraq war that "[t]here's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage" (our emphasis)." ...

... As Clinton herself pointed out during the debate, the two candidates have identical voting records on the war since they both have been in the Senate. Furthermore, Obama's views about how to conduct the war are not significantly different from hers, and they have proposed very similar plans for ending it.

So, while he gave a great speech at the convention and she agrees with him and told Bush so, they do not have a different record and have authorized almost everything together since he became a US Senator. Remember, he even admits she is his mentor. Perhaps that was when he was "duped" with the same lies everyone else was eh?

What I see him doing is playing a typical political game and misleading voters by omitting things that could be used against him which is simply taking advantage of politicially uneducated new voters being "duped" by the MSM too.

Regarding being competitive with McCain, don't you think they will use this against him if he becomes the nominee? Sure they will! It will make him look like a dishonest opportunistic politician and McCain just might beat him on that point. He cannot repair it now because he has made it the premise of his "distinct campaign".

She came off as peevish, whiny, and strident. Her monotone conversational voice sounds like she only knows how to give lectures. And it was very sad to see her go on & on talking over everyone, even over the commercials.

She constantly tried to damage Obama with her answers and he batted down everything she dealt out.

DCVoter and Two-cats:
Obama's comment about agreeing with Bush's handling of the war pertained to the surge and new body armor and mine resistant vehicles. THAT was the context. Remember the analogy Obama gave about running a bus into a ditch? Everyone on the scene would agree the best way to get it out would be a tow truck with a wench. That's the part Obama said he agreed with Bush about.

So-you-have-nothing.

IS HILLARY CLINTON CONTROLLING OBAMA??
"MEET ME IN OHIO" SHE USED THESE WORDS AS IF WAS COMMANDING OBAMA. HER STATEMENTS HERE SHOWED DISRESPECT TO OBAMA. WHY CANN'T SHE BE POLITE TO HER RIVAL??? THIS GENTLEMAN HAS NEVER USED IMPOLITE WORDS TO CLINTON.HE ALWAYS RESPECTS HER.MAY GOD SHOW HER THE STRAIGHT PATH, AMEN.

Rob - You are free to support Obama of course. I posted the quote because I was asked. I disagree with your assessment.

Obama is not authentic IMHO as any young, egotistical, politician would be. He has a lot to learn and needs to mature with experience. He has no credibility with me considering how much he misleads people and his failure to accomplish anything of substance as he was elected to do. He might have idealistic views that he really believes about himself. In fact, he seems to be all about himself. LOL (he has nothing to show for himself to justify it).

Senator Clinton is the experienced competent realist we need as President at this time in our history and he would make a fine VP for her. This would give him the opportunity to learn how the real world works so that he can accomplish things instead of parrot other people's words and copy other people's ideas.

IAT - your response is typical of most Americans who hold women to a different standard regarding their words and actions. He has spoken poorly of her often in his speeches yet you seem to think that is ok.

Try a little experiment and take the issue quizzes that hide who said what. (many websites have them) You will likely find that Clinton and Obama say the same thing and actually Kucinich says it all best. I find that I agree with 60% Clinton and 53% Obama on the issues. (Unfortunately for Kucinich, he did not have the "image" people wanted.)

Bottom line for me is: both Clinton and Obama meet minimum job rqmts, both have styles that appeal to equal segments of the "client population", both have similar voting records, both have similar interest group ratings, both have the same lobbyists, both have the same industries supporting their campaigns with contributions, Clinton has the greater experience and demonstrates greater competence with regards to policy, administration, fiscal responsibility, foreign relations, and national security (these are key since they are the real job of the President). Since there are two positions (one is a backup for the other), it makes perfect sense to consider Obama as VP to Clinton. He can learn and mature while helping her turn things around in the way that she knows best. A Win-Win-Win-Win situation for the party, the country, the world, and the candidates. It's a no-brainer!

Maybe Hillary should had displayed this fighting spirit before Iowa when she was the overwhelming favorite. Then it would had been in her interest to had said "Meet me at the caucuses". But look where an overconfident and badly ran campaign got her. I would had supported her if she had got it right, but now I just can't wait to see her go away for the good of our party and our chances in November.

Rail - Interesting you mentioned caucuses. Personally, I do not think caucuses reflect the will of the voters. They are not secret ballot and therefore people that participate (in the absence of any other way to vote in the primaries) are subject to peer pressure, husband or friends knowing who they vote for, and pressured decisions instead of thoughtful votes. The states that hold both clearly confirm this theory like Washington State. I think it would be an interesting experiment to extrapolate data and see just what the pledged delegate count would really be. My number crunching revealed Clinton would be the frontrunner. Unfortunately, some states still use caucuses I guess because they are so much cheaper for the smaller population states. The superdelegates were actually put into the scheme to account for this type of disparity and low voter turnouts (ie. superdelegates actually cast votes for the non-voting electorate). Unfortunately, the media skews this topic as well with its biased coverage in the interest of ratings and advertising revenues.

Additional thoughts on electability: The MSM seems to imply that Obama has greater electability but the electoral college picture is much different that what they portray. Obama's so-called wins in small caucus states in many cases are states that the Dems will not likely carry in November. Of the larger states that the Dems need to carry, Clinton is the victor. Texas is a good example of a state that it makes little sense to focus on for electability because they vote Red for President. The fight for Texas is for delegates only. I would prefer we had a media watchdog group, 6 months of primary campaigning by all candidates including webcasting all debates/events (green campaigns what a concept)... any candidate can run from their own base without having to "not have time for their own job", a national primary, conventions 3 months later, 3 months of election campaigning, and a general election. Level the playing field, provide maximum coverage, walk the walk on reducing the carbon footprint, and respect the voters. But, well that can only happen when the heaven open, the light shines through, and the celestial choirs sing in a perfect world with peace and prosperity for all. LOL

Another week, another bad slogan for the Clinton campaign.

Senator Clinton's days in race are numbered.

She is becoming desparate as well as mad watching her popularity slipping and long time friends and Super delegates are leaving her in favour of
Senator Obama. Who wants to give their hard earned money to a looser. She won't have money to continue campaigning against Obama. Soon she will have to retire from race. I will be surprised if she will even wish good luck to Obama in bitterness for seeing her dream of becoming President of USA
shatters because of Obama. Hillary Clinton may not even cast her vote in favor of Obama running against
Senator McCaine in November.

Hillary is doing just what men want her to do that is whine, whine whine. If she would become president they would never take her seriously because she would complain about not being first, or all the attacks on her. Don't start what you can't finish,

Hillary is tarnishing Obama's image so as to give her mementoum on March 4th. Unfortunately these tactics and strategies cnn't work now. I'm sorry for her.The Americans people have spoken and their words have been heard. These are will of God she must admited it. People are born with leadership.So she must not force her way to become president.

Under Bill, OBL could have been taken captive but wasn't. Terrorism against the USA gained a foothold in Bill's administration. He killed a few camels and blew up a few tents with million dollar cruise missiles and destroyed a pharmaceutical factory. But then, it seemed like somebody got bombed or cruise missiles flew each time a new Clinton scandal was brewing. Perhaps this is what Hillary means when she says that there is a difference between talk and action: she'll kill some camels. The "wipe them out" language sounds serious, though. Sounds like she's equating the terrorists with her political opponents or the unfortunate female victims of Bill. Maybe she's getting serious after all.

She is banging McCain's war drum who is banging Bush's who got his plan out of a cereal box. Anyone who promises to "wipe them out" with only military efforts is dreaming. She claims to be so substantive and yet doles out simple pablum hoping it sells. Too short on scope for me, thanks.

DC Voter: "Obama did not vote and did not have the data to review so his opinion on the vote is irrelevant."

Its not irrelevant to me, and I control my own vote. Each voter has to decide what information is and isn't relevant for themselves.

DC Voter - I also disagree with your electoral analysis. Granted, Obama is winning more red states than Clinton, and granted he'll have a much more difficult time in these states during the general election.

But the blue states that have gone for Clinton will almost certainly go for any Democrat. Obama will carry New York, California and Massachusetts in the general election.

Obama's strength is that he can attract independents in battleground states, and possibly even turn a few reliable red states into battlegrounds. States like Virginia and Iowa are showing signs of vulnerability for Republicans. And even Kansas is wobbling a little. If nothing else, maybe Obama could force McCain to expend resources holding these states, whereas he wouldn't against a Democrat who doesn't have Obama's appeal with independents.

I think that the very best Hillary can do March 4 will be to evenly divide the delegates. Then they'll both be up by the same number, and Obama will still maintain his lead.

Paul - yes he has won more red states but most of those he is winning will not be carried by the Dems. The Blue states Clinton is winning might vote for him and they might not. A lot of voters are peeved (in both camps) that anyone would assume they will vote for someone they dont like just to vote against the Republicans. Close elections have shown us that conventional wisdom like that just doesnt work anymore. Of the democratic primary voters, many are not democrats so there is no reason to assume those primary voters will remain democratic voters in November.

Can anyone hear that? That is the sound of the Republicans laughing at us..sitting by watching us destroy each other and they haven't had to do a thing. Whoever you support we should all be recognizing the big picture. One of our Democratic candidates is going to run againt McCain for president - we should all be familiarizing ourselves with Obama's and Hillary's ideas ( shoot even I did and look at my name).We can't all get what we want here with the nominee but maybe we can all at least get a Democratic President that at least partially stands for our beliefs. Man, if you guys ran over and peeked at the Repubs blogs all of this nonsense would make you feel pretty silly- I know i did...

He met her in Ohio and what happened? She said very little and cried to the press. Other than that the "coming out" swinging did not take place.

I don't necessarily think that is is a bad thing the swinging didn't happen..would it have been more interesting to the viewers probably, but better for the party and their causes?-NO I think both of the candidates did a fine job acting respectably ...at least on camera. Maybe they are beginning to understand what I referred to as the Big Picture in my earlier post...at least we can hope they are.

If either supporters of Clinton or Obama were to not rally around the winner, and cost the Democrats this election, that non-nominee candidate's name would be Mudd (or Nader) inside the party.

Something to think about. If you support a candidate, you might want to think about that individual's legacy. Dividing the party to the point of losing the White House would make that person infamous.

Many Democrats are voting for experience. They'd prefer Hillary to win; however, if she isn't a choice, then McCain becomes a distant second choice.

The Blue Dog Democrats are the group that is growing--not the liberal left. Therefore, McCain is more close to a Blue Dog than Obama. It's really a logical choice for a moderate to conservative Democrat.

It's not about the legacy of a person or a party. It's about who can actually run the government or damage it the least in the next 4 years.

You can say that, Ben, and I respect your opinion. I'm an independent, so I do believe in voting for the best person.

However, how will Democrats two or four years from now see it? I don't think it will be pretty.

Besides, the whole experience thing is silly. Most presidents in modern times come to the office after being governor, and thus have no Washington experience. It used to be, not too many years ago, considered a liability to come out of the Senate. At present, we have three senators and maybe just two who are still in the running, so one of them has to win. But the experience thing was a Clinton creation to attempt to differentiate herself from Obama and Edwards.

It just isn't that important, and actually may be a detriment as well, as it may lock a future president into past procedures, as well as lead to micromanaging, which is the kiss of death for any administration.

Ben, do me a favor. Make a list of who you think are the five greatest presidents, and another list of the five worst presidents.

No need to share this with the class. Just do it for yourself.

When you're done with the lists, compare the two in terms of experience prior to be president. I think its a good bet the 'worst' list has more Washington experience.

44% of the country's voters consider themselves to be Independents. This is the growing "party". But I do agree the modereates within the parties are the growing sectors. Not surprising considering most Independents are moderates.

Elections are secret ballot and therefore any primary party pledge is unenforceable. Even the experts are confused about what the exit polls are indicating and predicting primary cross-over voting will reverse on some level in November if the "dream tickets" for the major parties dont evolve.

Many primaries and caucuses allow Independents to vote and some allow non-state residents to vote by registering on the same day claiming you plan to move there. If you think there have not been active campaign tactics taking advantage of this you are mistaken.

Both parties have their share of Independents participating or declaring party affiliation in order to participate. Nothing prevents party affiliation changes prior to the election.

Republicans want a united party. Democrats want a united party. Independents dont care about either party unification. So the independents who are participating in the primaries are not going to care about "doing the right thing for the party".

This election year is wide-open and has not been predictable by the pundits who use conventional wisdom. The parties will not determine who wins this election... the Independents will.

I agree with that last line, DCVoter. The Republicans have taken a step toward being competitive by nominating their best candidate with indendents.

Democrats should do the same.

Hillary turned out to be all "bark" no "bite"...Hillary did not throw the big punch, Hillary did not get the big win she needed. After seeing this debate Hillary presented as a whining person (The devil is in the details!)

What are the Clinton's hiding on their tax return? Could it be that the income section is 'BLANK' but the Clinton's managed to make so much money that they could lend $5 million to their campaign? This is bothersome!

hEY BAG THE B...., You always place info on here that is conveniently tweeked or incomplete. Sometimes even completely made up; I assume by YOU. You always place polls from a list where 2-3 other polls also exist but are deleted from the list because they debunk your anti Hillary Clinton point. You must be as clueless as you apparently think/hope the rest of the people are.