December 21st, 2007
04:55 PM ET

Making a Choice in Iowa


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

With just two weeks to go, a very large number of Democratic caucus goers in Iowa say they haven't decided who's going to get their vote. The debate has been largely about "experience"– which is what Senator Hillary Clinton argues she has on her side– versus "change" which is what Senator Barack Obama promises to bring to Washington. Also very much in the mix is John Edwards, who vows to do battle with the large corporations that have a stranglehold on the federal government. In fact recent polls in Iowa show Senator Edwards trailing Clinton and Obama by just a couple of percentage points, putting the three of them in a virtual dead-heat.

Iraq, health care and the economy have ranked as the top issues for Democrats in Iowa.

But with so many undecided voters this late in the race, something is clearly missing.

Here’s my question to you: In the closing days of the Iowa campaign what will cause undecided voters to finally make up their minds?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Suzie from Atlanta writes:
Having been in a party caucus before, I don't think there will be any one factor that will tilt a caucus voter in any direction. I think they will get there, talk to their buddies, and make their decision based on internal conversations with party delegates they know and trust.

William from Cedar Rapids, Iowa writes:
Iowans won’t make up there mind until caucus night. That’s the way it always is. Remember in ’04, Kerry was in fifth in the polls and won here surprising everyone. The top tier might be surprised on January 3rd.

Anthony writes:
We've had eight years of Emperor Bush and people want a change. However, putting in the new guy who does little else but talk a good game isn't the answer. It's just not enough to talk about change, you have to have the experience and vision to make it happen. We've endured one President who talked a good game and delivered nothing, we don't need another. Wise Democrats will realize that it takes more then hype and few good speeches to be President and they'll vote Hillary Clinton.

John from Brunswick, Maine writes:
Oh the Democratic side, it will be the candidate that can assure the public that they can get us back to the rule of law and restore our Constitution. You know, that paper that they all take an oath to protect. On the Republican side, it will be which ever candidate that is closer to God and voting machine hackers.

Jerry from Scottsdale, Arizona writes:
Why does everybody just accept it as fact that Hillary Clinton is the "most experienced" candidate? As far as I can see, she's only been a senator for 6 years and before that, the wife of a successful politician. If the president of GM suggested his wife was qualified to take his job, he'd be laughed out of Detroit. In reality, Hillary Clinton is the least experienced candidate but the most experienced wife.

Jarod writes:
For one, Jack, I think Christmas, or whatever holiday you celebrate, being over will certainly help people make a decision. Believe it or not, not everybody lives and breathes on presidential politics in this season.

John writes:
Undecided Iowa voters will make up their minds after the media deludes them into believing people around country care about who they pick.

Maybe Jack will read yours tomorrow.

Filed under: Elections • Iowa
soundoff (173 Responses)
  1. Tom Bulger

    The person who comes across as the real deal is the candidate who'll draw the Independent voters. Obama is my guess. He not only claims to be an agent of change, his campaigning style is a change from the usual politician's. Hillary's campaign on the other hand is dirty tricks as usual.

    December 21, 2007 at 1:14 pm |
  2. Allen L Wenger

    Well Jack, I would assume it is the same thing that has won the last 2 presidential elections; Misinformation. Misinformation in this case means; something that starts with a grain of truth, about an opponent, and then gets disorted beyond recognition. Who ever can lie (misinform) and be the most convincing, will win. It's not about ideas or reality, but the misconstude perception of your opponents reality, that will win the voters. Just think of how different campaigns would be, if the campaigns were only allowed to talk about their candidate. Hard to imagine, isn't it?

    December 21, 2007 at 1:17 pm |
  3. Dario Raymond

    The most trusted name in news?? Come on Mr. Cafferty and as for Mike Huckabee's "two words....Chuck Norris"....all I gotta say is "five words.....are you god damn serious?"!! All the way with Hillary simply because she does her homework better than all the rest!!

    From: Dario Raymond, a true Kennedy Deomcrat/Clintonian centrist from cradle to mothafokin' grave!! Give my best to the ragin Cajun......James "mothafokin" Carville!!

    December 21, 2007 at 1:43 pm |
  4. Jayne

    I'm an undecided New Hampshire Democrat and my final decision on who to vote for in the primary will be based on the manner in which the candidates are going after their opposition. Needless to say, Hillary has been crossed off my list.

    December 21, 2007 at 1:48 pm |
  5. Chris Atchley

    John Edwards.

    December 21, 2007 at 1:49 pm |
  6. W B in Las Vegas

    I'm hoping it's rational thought on the part of Iowa Democrates.

    hopefully they will sober up and realise that Hillary Clinton is the LEAST ELECTABLE vs ANY Republican in the 2008 election. polls show she is dead even with most of the Republican candidates and even LOSES to John McCain while both Obama and Edwards defeat every one by at least 10 points. she also "energizes the Republican base" to get out and vote against her which would definately hurt Democratic Congressional and Senatorial candidates.

    and IF she DID win, the only "change" the country would get with the Clintons back in power would be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss". they are in bed with the Walls Street Weasel mortgage banker crooks and Corporate Quisling outsourcers as much as ANY Republican.

    December 21, 2007 at 1:54 pm |
  7. James Newman


    Haven't you been watching? The "undecided" Iowan caucus goers get to spend all night changing, trading even selling their votes, depending on the degree of arm-twisting applied by the political parties power brokers. All making Time magazines "Man of the Year" Vladimir Putin writhe with envy; "I think I very much like this form of American democracy, comrades . . . " What a system and to think we shamelessly strut our stuff around the world telling other nations how to do it . . . the democracy thing, you know. It's all just amazing.

    James Newman
    Greenwood, Maine

    December 21, 2007 at 2:15 pm |
  8. earl illingsworth

    with n.h. just a few days after iowa, all three republican/democrate candidates will have come clean, and haved showed their hands with their cuffs rolled up, with no piggybacking on issues ,knowing that honesty trumps deception,because iowan's come first,and the country is listening.

    December 21, 2007 at 2:19 pm |
  9. Jenny from New York

    Seeing Barack Obama speak could turn ANYONE into an Obama voter.

    December 21, 2007 at 2:22 pm |
  10. earl illingsworth

    with n.h. just a few days after iowa all three candidates from both parties will have come clean with their cuffs rolled up they will have shown their hand there will be no piggybacking on issues,knowing that honesty trumps deception,because iowan's come first,and the country is listening with both ears this time!

    December 21, 2007 at 2:33 pm |
  11. Helen

    Its sad that a few states get to pick who the rest of us get to vote for....but if thay pick obama i will be setting out the next elecition.NO WAY WOULD I VOTE FOR HIM

    December 21, 2007 at 2:47 pm |
  12. douglas gengler knoxville arkansas

    i will vote for the least experienced person in the campaign!!!!!! look where 7 years of experience got us.

    December 21, 2007 at 2:57 pm |
  13. john, miami

    I imagine that exposure to television, radio, and print media garbage will be the deciding factor in those dumb, stupid, not to mention racist and bigoted, Iowan's making up what passes for their minds. As every political con artist says, "Thank God for Middle America!"

    December 21, 2007 at 3:15 pm |
  14. Terry O'Flaherty

    My guess is the media will influence the last minute voters on who will win in Iowa.

    December 21, 2007 at 3:15 pm |
  15. Troy

    Iowa will make up its mind when it googles ron paul.

    December 21, 2007 at 3:18 pm |
  16. Jerry Wilson

    It's just nice to know, it will not be G W Bush receiving undecided votes in Iowa.
    Iowa won the "old fools title" after voting a second time for Bush in 2004. However Iowa voters may be spared the title of "really old fools" in 2008, because Bush isn't on the ballot, but Huckabee is, so the "really old fool title is still tere for the taking.

    Jerry Wilson

    December 21, 2007 at 3:18 pm |
  17. jay, sanfrancisco

    Jack, You be the Jesus, The "undecided "Iowans have the anwser infront of them. I mean they will go to the polls and caucus for Barack Obama. Iowans are smart and will make the right decision.I am a republican and a woman.I think Obama is the real deal. For Mrs. Clinton, I'm not sure if she can handle America "at least" right now. She is not straight forward. Obama can!

    December 21, 2007 at 3:22 pm |
  18. Greg from PA

    Rational thought has little to do with deciding who to vote for. It will be something stupid like a cross in the background or some off-the-cuff remark that will push voters to one candidate or another. If logic had anything to do with it, Democrats would vote for John Edwards, who defeats all Republican candidates by the widest margin, and Republicans, realizing this, would simply stay home and accept defeat.

    December 21, 2007 at 3:26 pm |
  19. James S. Lenon

    What will cause undecided Iowa voters to finally decide? I'd bet it is the overwhelming desire for all the campaign drones to leave Iowa in peace until the 1st of December 2009.

    December 21, 2007 at 3:27 pm |
  20. Ed

    Once they find their Ron Paul indecision will be greatly reduced.

    December 21, 2007 at 3:42 pm |
  21. Larry from MO.


    I think anybody could win the State of Iowa. I think how much the candidates spend on their haircuts and how good they look on election day will be the deciding factor in Iowa.


    December 21, 2007 at 3:49 pm |
  22. William Schmidt

    There is a larger percentage of unsatisfied Democratic and Republican voters out here than the Media is addressing. The ordinary men and women are fed up with what has been occuring; the decline of our fore-fathers hard worked/fought for and once sustained standard of living and border security. Whomever stands the tallest on these issues will win in november. The Democrats seemingly have no one. The Republicans are in the same boat; with the exception of one; Ron Paul.
    I have become an Indepentend, and have always been a proud member of the silent majority. But I can no longer remain so. There is to much at stake.
    Dr. Paul is outspoken on what I felt was needed 20 years ago. Everyday more people are finding out about this straight talking statesman. Everyday more citizens are sending a few dollars to support their cause. It is a building force.

    December 21, 2007 at 3:55 pm |
  23. John

    They'll choose someone who speaks the truth. They'll choose someone who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.

    December 21, 2007 at 3:58 pm |
  24. Henry Miller, Cary, NC

    Actually, Laura Bush has exactly the same White House experience that Hillary Clinton does–and Laura seems like a much nicer person. If "experience" is all that matters, maybe we should vote for her instead?

    December 21, 2007 at 3:59 pm |
  25. Patricia

    Since I'm not in Iowa & I don't know what will help someone in Iowa decide who they would like to choose, I can only tell you what would help me choose, it will be the candidate who sticks to his/her message rather than trying to use personal attacks to get over. So far, John Edwards has pretty much stuck to his message, although Barack Obama has also tried to stay above the fray as well. I also like to see if a candidate can tell 1 good joke, it shows me they have a sense of humor. Ofcourse, there hasn't been much to laugh at considering that Bush has been running the country into the ground.... but, then again.... There have been some realllllllllll dilly's coming out of the White House lately....

    December 21, 2007 at 4:03 pm |
  26. Rich, McKinney Texas

    I don't think it matters what Iowa voters think. On the average, about 60% of voting-age Americans vote in presidential elections. It is is a false assumption that the American people elect the president.
    The presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in a state "wins" that state's electoral votes, usually in a winner-take-all manner. After elections in each state are certified, the electoral votes won by each candidate are counted. If a candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes (at least 270 of the 538 total), he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the U.S. House of Representatives chooses the winner, with each state delegation having one vote. Because the President is not elected directly by the people, it is possible for a candidate to receive a plurality of the popular vote and yet lose the election.
    You see Jack the popular vote means nothing.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:08 pm |
  27. David Cissner,San Bernardino,CA.

    As Dennis Kucinich would say,when pigs fly and the cow jumps over the Moon!

    December 21, 2007 at 4:10 pm |
  28. PCM 01

    As soon as the neighbours start talking about running mates, we know that 'the people have spoken'.

    Obama/Edwards is resonating already in the neighbourhood.

    Merry Christmas to all of you.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:11 pm |
  29. Monte Brown


    Hillary Clinton will win the states of Iowa, “live free or die” New Hampshire, and South Carolina. It just makes sense. Criticize her all you want but the American people know who is the most qualified candidate, the most experienced candidate and which candidate is ready to lead on day one. Denial will get us nowhere but back where we started. We need to get rid of these reactionaries. We need to stop dogging the Democrats and labeling them as ineffective because they can’t get policy passed in the House and the Senate like they intended. They can’t stop Emperor Bush’s veto. What are they going to do, Jack. I know that you have been one of the harshest critics of the Democrat. We don’t need to be telling Americans to be Independent. What we need is to swing the policies to the Progressive left.

    Hate on Bill all you want but the man created 23 million jobs and poverty was rapidly declining. Why would you hate someone like that especially in these times? I don’t care about Bills past life. The man is a “clever chameleon”, according to Alan Greenspan.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:11 pm |
  30. Brandon of Hawaii

    Jack, The deciding in Iowa is going to all relay on Clinton's war aspects. In Iowa, along with gay marriage, that is the only problem. The war in Iraq needs to end, that is the decision among democrats in Iowa.

    Merry Christmas.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:14 pm |
  31. W B in Las Vegas

    Greg from PA writes: "If LOGIC had anything to do with it, Democrats would vote for John Edwards, who defeats all Republican candidates by the widest margin"

    AMEN, Greg.

    OOPS SORRY!!! THAT sounded like a HUCKABILLY Republican!!! YIKES!!!

    in all seriousness, I think Edwards is the ONLY candidate that would actually take on the Wall Street Weasels and Corporate Quislings that are destroying the middle class in this country. hopefully a majority of Democrates will come to realise that.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:14 pm |
  32. Don Carey


    I don't know what will move the undecided voters to finally select their candidate. One would hope that the choice would rest on the same things we look for in potential employees; experience, education, wisdom and ability. After all, they are all suppose to work for the people, for us. We should treat elections more like an employment search, and then act accordingly.

    We have seen what electing the weakest candidate in the field can do for us, or is it to us? Can we afford to repeat that same mistake?


    Don Carey, Idaho Falls

    December 21, 2007 at 4:19 pm |
  33. bnthdntht

    I think it will come down to electability. I am a devout Clinton supporter,but I do not want to see the ultra right wing conseravatives have a reason to come out to vote like they did when Rove made gay marriage an issue. The only thing the republicans have going for them 2008 is Hillary and Obama just like in 2000 when they had Ralph Nader and the news media won't touch the issue. It's the two elephants in the room.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:22 pm |
  34. Theresa

    I think, when all is said and done and people are standing and looking at the ballot undecided, they will think of all the negativism and vote for the person who has stayed true to himself–Barack Obama.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:24 pm |
  35. Asok, Takoma, Md

    I must say that,the undecided democratic electoral coccus goers are those that vote with their heads and need a meaningful change in the geo-politics of the United States of America. This group of voters constitutes those that bear in mind the fact that the US is a democracy and not a monarchy. The mere fact that, the former President Clinton indirectly attacks Hilary Clinton's opponents, tantamounts to a deperate desire for a third term of office by the Clintons. America has other leaders who would perform better in leading the country morally, diplomatically and economically. In this wise, the undecided voters would definitely cast their votes to either Obama or Edwards. Suffice it to say that, America is not a dynasty where-in, a Bush leaves power, a Clinton gets it, a Clinton leaves Power, a Bush gets it and a Bush leaves power another Clinton gets it. " Wake up from slumber Americans and choose the right leader for your country".

    December 21, 2007 at 4:26 pm |
  36. Craig in Virginia

    Undecided voters will get off the fence once they realized a basic truth: The two single most divisive (and let's face it, hated) names in modern American political history are "Bush" and "Clinton". Unfortunately (and unfairly) for Sen. Clinton, her nomination will energize the GOP base like no other candidate and the resulting GOP victory will continue the destructive policies which have torn this nation down from the greatness it once knew. Once undecided realize what is at stake, they will cast their ballots for someone other than Sen. Clinton.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:27 pm |
  37. Richard Winchell

    The deciding issue for selecting a Democratic presidential candidate should be electability. Though I like and respect Hillary, I fear that she would energize and unify the Republicans while alienating independents. Because of his lack of national organization and viability, a vote for John Edwards is a vote for Hillary. My vote is for Obama, who will inspire Democrats, reach out to independents, win the general election, and have a real chance of unifying the country.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:28 pm |
  38. PCM 01

    This election has been defined as a fork in the road; we cannot continue in the same way: military mess, economic uncertainty, serious environmental issues, political ineficiencies,very few friends left in the world, e.t.c.

    So, if still there is anybody undecided in Iowa, or in any other part of the U.S.A. you better stay home because you do not have a clue on what is going on and you might choose the wrong guy...again.!

    December 21, 2007 at 4:35 pm |
  39. Dave

    Voters in Iowa will base their decision on electability and likeability leaving Senator Clinton in a distant third to Obama and Edwards. People wanting to vote based on experience would be better off deciding between Biden, Dodd and Richardson.

    Bottom line: Hillary Clinton’s negative attack style of politics, continued posturing to the right on most issues and polarizing effect on the American public has torpedoed her once ‘inevitable’ nomination and eventual election.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:35 pm |
  40. Jerry Clifton

    why does everybody just accept it as fact that Hillory Clinton is the "most experienced" candidate. As far as I can she, she's only been a senator for 2 years and before that the wife of a successful politician. If the presedent of GM suggessted his wife was qualified to take his job, he'd be laughed out of Detroit.
    In reality Hillory Clinton is the LEAST experienced candidate but the MOST experienced wife.

    Jerry Clifton
    Scottsdale, Az

    December 21, 2007 at 4:35 pm |
  41. FRED

    I see Monte Brown has also found your blog, where all he does is say that Hillary is ready to lead from Day One. Who told him that? Did he learn that as some indoctrination ritual or something. Obama will win Iowa, NH and South Carolina and he will pick Edwards to be his running mate, not the back stabbing, I know it all Hillary Clinton, and then together they will fight for the middle class and change America for ever. Obama says eh doesnt want yes men, and yes, Edwards will not be a yes man.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:35 pm |
  42. Ron Dow

    Contrary to what most people think, there are probably a lot fewer "undecided" voters in Iowa and New Hampshire than the numbers tell, as most are saying, "It's none of your business for whom I am voting". I know I would.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:35 pm |
  43. Bill from Tennessee

    What will cause the voters to make up their minds? Those spiffy Christmas ads!!
    If they don't tell you where the candiates priorites are, then nothing will. Oh how I wish every election was held around the Christmas seasons, just imagine the "sincerity" that would come through in the political ads.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:41 pm |
  44. suzie from atlanta, GA

    Having been in a Party Caucus before, I don't think there will be any one factor that will tilt a caucus voter in any direction. I think they will get there, talk to their buddies, and make their decision based on internal conversations with Party delegates they know and trust. I can tell you this: the GOP will only win if the Dems nominate someone who is not a moderate, not a realist, and not experienced enough to hit the ground running. We have a lot of serious problems to fix, and not one of them can be fixed immediately, regardless of what you may hear a candidate say.
    If they want to win in '08, they have to consider who is the best overall candidate, the one person who can best stand up to the GOP dirt spreader, yes, but also the one who can best lead us out of the mess Bush/Cheney have created all over the world. If they base their decision on reality, not gloss or packaging, then they can only vote for Biden, Dodd or Clinton, and maybe Richardson......maybe. Obama is all gloss and glow, with ZERO experience. Yes, he was against the war, but he was not in the Senate to vote on it, so his talk is cheap. he has not done one thing in the Senate but sit there and look cute. Dennis the "k", was against the war from day 1, and every one of his 2004 predictions have proven to be correct. So does that make either one a candidate who can win? Could either one truly lead the country?
    If the Democrats screw this up by treating this as a beauty contest the whole country is going to suffer. This has to be a "business" decision, because WE are interviewing people for a job, and if we treat it differently we are going to wind up worse off than we are now.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:41 pm |
  45. teddy

    well the fact that this is a change election will make up peoples minds. Change is Obama. Sticking with what you know even if you do not like it is Clinton. Obama will win by a landslide.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:42 pm |
  46. Gloria Gloria

    "Seeing Barack Obama speak could turn ANYONE into an Obama voter."

    That is the problem brought us Bush. Check the record, not speech. "It just won't do for this election " Sorry, I have to use Obama's words

    It seems that it is very hard to elect a female president. I never heard anything honest or good comment about Hillary from the mouth of so called the best political reporter Gloria. She never made any sharp or to the point comment or report. All we hear is she reports the candidate she likes most. Please put your heart and soul on the line, show your respect.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:46 pm |
  47. Jarod from Joplin

    For one, Jack, I think Christmas, or whatever holiday you celebrate, being over will certainly help people make a decision. Believe it or not, not everybody lives and breathes on presidential politics in this season. Secondly, I think honesty, authenticity, and positivity are going to be the deciding factors for whoever wins. I definately don't think cheap shots, twisted truths, and silly talk about who's endorsing who is just going to encourage people not to vote.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:51 pm |
  48. Rob

    My vote goes to Hillary. I see through the transparency of Obama's issues/rhetoric. It's okay for EVERYONE to go to town regarding Hillary's character, motivation, appearances, and language in the most disparaging terms possible – and without any hesitation. That's why (as a native Iowan) the rest of the country heeds our words – because we have clue and can decipher through the BS machine that Obama & Edwards is a part of.

    RL in Des Moines

    December 21, 2007 at 4:51 pm |
  49. Nadia

    Hillary Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart & Tyson Foods. Accustomed to dirty tricks. Large corporate entities. She failed at Healthcare which to me if you fail you don't suddenly become the most qualified. Plus I lost respect with her on how she handled her husband's infidelities. Obama is questionable because his healthcare is not Universal. Several of his plans are very conservative and would really not create change. Great speaker but that's about it. And he's afraid of beeing too liberal or progressive and my opinion is that he wants to have an appearance of conservatism. He needs to find himself. We would basically be at status quo because of his lack of experience. Edwards as I see it is the only viable candidate. His life experience include losing a son and a terminal wife. NO dirty tricks, speaking direct and having listened to several of his speeches and having experienced the same loss of a son, I know from personal experience that perspectives change and leaving positive legacies are important.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:52 pm |
  50. Anthony Garritano

    We've had eight years of Emperor Bush and people want a change. However, putting in the new guy who does litlle else but talk a good game isn't the answer. It's just not enough to talk about change, you have to have the experience and vision to make it happen. We've endured one President who talked a good game and delivered nothing, we don't need another. Wise Democrats will realize that it takes more then hype and few good speeches to be President and they'll vote Hillary Clinton.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:55 pm |
  51. john

    Undecided Iowa voters will make up their minds after the media deludes them into believing people around country care about who they pick.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:56 pm |
  52. Monte in Rolla, Missouri

    All of these candidates are like Christmas guests whom have come to visit my home, and have overstayed their welcomes. All (Republicans) and or (Democrats) are going over the same issues and are not offering any solutions to the problems. ie, THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM: What part of ILLEGAL don't these people understand?? If you don't have the proper paperwork, GET OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!!!! It is nothing but checking which way the wind blows, and how many votes they will get out of these groups that are sympathetic to the illegal cause.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:58 pm |
  53. Thomas, SC

    I think electability will ultimately be what it comes down to, which is why I think Edwards will pull the upset in Iowa. Everyone talks about the potential difficulties of a woman or African American in the general election, all the while ignoring a perfectly viable candidate they have in Edwards. He surely would have won last time if he had been in Kerry's place, and according to national polls, it looks like the democrats may make the same mistake all over again.

    December 21, 2007 at 4:59 pm |
  54. Kenny, Tulsa, OK

    Hi, Jack,

    As best I can keep track, over 50% of the current presidential contenders, including the two democratic frontrunners, are currently a Governor, Senator, or Congressman, spending the better part of two years of their current terms trying to raise a half billion dollars to buy the presidency. All the while they continue to get paid a 100% taxpayer funded salary to NOT do their jobs and expect us to believe that they have the country's best interests at heart.
    With regards to experience, it's the experienced politicians that have gotten us where we are today.
    Iowans need to ask for a completely new set of candidates. In fact, we all do.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:03 pm |
  55. Ted Minnard

    Dear candidates, Grow up and stop the mud slinging, utilize strict honesty and no more hedging on direct questions. We are not as ignorant as you think; we know the difference. We'll prove it to you at the polls.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:04 pm |
  56. Randy Hurst San Francisco, California 94121

    I don't think it matters. When it is too close to call at the convention, the delegates will awaken and draft Al Gore. (Does Alan Keyes blow up Ron Paul's balloon or does that wind go to waste ?)

    December 21, 2007 at 5:05 pm |
  57. Joe Mathews

    Now that Clinton's staffers are downplaying any possible victory in Iowa, it will be
    curious just who finishes first, Edwards or Obama. If they're "bunched" and Clinton's over 5 points in back of them, then all NH bets are off. Being in Vermont and spending a lot of time in NH, I'm picking up "vibes" that Clinton's support is either flat or dropping.

    Reasons are a general lack of "likeability" and the old baggage is coming back to haunt her. The Billy Shaheen episode really hurt her as well. Also, with Mc Cain surging, how many of those independents Obama and Edwards hoped were going to vote in Democratic primary actually will.? Mc Cain's caught fire over there and there are going to be surprises.

    Hillary, be yourself, stop the gimmicks ("Likability Tour", "Hillacopter" et al) and get control of your campaingn as it's coming over as the "Keystone Kops" in the past six weeks. Never count her out, but the sense of her nomination being inevitable are gone!

    December 21, 2007 at 5:05 pm |
  58. dian schwartz

    I have a lot of faith in the wonderful people of Iowa and am sure that they will show us the right path for our country to take in choosing our next president. They , like most concerned, informed citizens, will show us the candidate that we need to choose to turn this sad state of affairs around. I know the polls change from day to day as to whom is ahead in this race but the polls that never change are the polls regarding electability and trust. Why would you elect someone that will not be able to defeat the republicans and more importantly, why would you vote for someone that you do not trust. We have a candidate that we can trust and that will go all the way to the White House. Iowa will tell us that we should and must vote for Barack Obama

    December 21, 2007 at 5:14 pm |
  59. Tony Rugare

    The stock market! The voter's pocketbook is is the key for his vote.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:14 pm |
  60. Rene

    How about a candidate that will address the important issues with some passion and intelligence. So far I havent seen anyone from either side really discuss real solutions to real problems.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:14 pm |
  61. David G.

    Jack, they "undecideds" won't make up their mind in Iowa, or in the rest of America, until there's finally a candidate that's worthy of our votes... Republican or Democrat. Their a bunch of losers on the whole.. just like our worthless congress and even more useless President. David G. Los Angeles

    December 21, 2007 at 5:14 pm |
  62. Steven, NYC

    Jack, why are you asking us? Surely, the "Best Political Team on TV" ought to have some talking head who could answer such an inane question. And, surely, the expert will do so with a perfectly straight face, and with absolute earnestness, as if that person, or anyone else, could answer such a dumb question.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:15 pm |
  63. Geoff Staples

    They're waiting for Joe Biden. Some of them just don't know that's who they're going to vote for yet. Joe's only been running ads for two weeks and he's already moving up in the polls.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:15 pm |
  64. ken


    December 21, 2007 at 5:16 pm |
  65. Dwayne

    I'm hoping they look at who is electable, that would be Edwards or Obama. Clinton will unite the Republicans and we can't afford another term with a Republican in the White House.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:16 pm |
  66. Jay

    Joe Biden!

    Just think about it. Please.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:16 pm |
  67. Rich, McKinney Texas

    There will always be undecided voters in the 2008 election and here is why. Every candidate both Democrats and Republicans are standing on their tips toes in a cesspool and they are up to the their chins in the crap that they have done and have failed to do and what the Bush administration did and all are yelling "Don't make waves".. Not one of these candidates has explained to the American people how they will stop illegal aliens from crossing the border or how to bring our troops home safely from abroad. The American people are tired of hearing "I am Going to" they want a plan and until a candidate has a plan for those two things and lays that plan out to them they will not get any more attention then the other candidates standing next to them saying, "Please don't make waves this stuff is starting to taste awful". Sorry Candidates but that’s what you dished out to every American and we are tired of eating it.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:17 pm |
  68. Dick the devil

    The dem stategy to cave and run against it ,like Iraq ,shows all they care about is getting reelected.

    They are politicians corrupted by corporate money.

    They all will get out of Iraq and the gop will stay the course.

    Edwards will fight this corruption and bring the most change.

    Obama will be " present".

    Hillary, " It takes a Clinton to clean up after a bush".

    Just vote dem, the greedy gop can't govern unless you are a corporation.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:18 pm |
  69. Linda

    Clinton and Obama are great. However Edwards is the most electable, so he will be the winner in Iowa. Linda... Lake Geneva , Wi.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:19 pm |
  70. Ozzie

    Hi Jack

    Well, I as an undecided voter....I'd like the candidates to just bluntly and plainly answer questions without being so vague. What I mean is: I'm not all that in tune w/politics...I'm just the average person who has personal beliefs, concerns and just want to do my part in making a difference. I'm just confused on which candidate will represent me the best. However, every time I watch a debate and hope to get some type of clarification, the candidates answer every question with some type of tongue twisting, long winded, vague paragraph. Just a simple "Yes" or "No" can really do it for me!

    Washington, NJ

    December 21, 2007 at 5:20 pm |
  71. butters

    Jack, I am worried that undecided Iowans will align with Edwards, not because of substantive policy differences, but because he is a white man. I am from Iowa, and many of my fellow Iowans are somehow annoyed with Hillary and worried about Obama's experience. In addition, votes for either candidate would be historically unprecedented, being that one is a woman and one is an African American. I am scared that when the time finally comes, Iowans will side with what they consider safe- and for the Democrats, that may be Edwards.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:20 pm |
  72. Michael Shanklin

    The truth is Hillary and Obama have left invading Iran and Pakistan as an option and I don't believe Edwards is for the democrats, just a small niche. They all give me deja vu of the first night I drank too much, blah! The only candidate thats an anti-preemptive strike war candidate would be Ron Paul. I was amazed when I watched his videos and I saw the true integrity of a candidate worthy of my vote! I am actually going to vote for a republican this year so that we stay out of war! Who would've thought that a year ago???

    December 21, 2007 at 5:20 pm |
  73. Randy

    The fact that recent polls show that John Edwards is the only Democrat that beats every single Republican should sway some minds. If they can't beat them (the Republicans), don't vote for them.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:20 pm |
  74. Craig Dunkerley

    Electability is what should help Iowans decide...and that will lead them to JOHN EDWARDS who in head to head polls consistantly beats all Republicans by larger margins than any other Democrat. Electability is what drove Iowans to John Kerry over Howard Dean in '04 and hopefully it will carry the day again. We can't afford another 4 years of Republican policies.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:21 pm |
  75. Jerry Dunlap

    Experience, change, and doing battle with large corporations are all serious issues but they are not the only serious issues. Cover more issues and get more undecided. Jerry

    December 21, 2007 at 5:22 pm |
  76. angie

    Knowing that Oprah could have a high position in his cabinet, would make me think twice about obama.
    I will vote Republican for the first time, if Obama gets in.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:22 pm |
  77. Nance M Cain

    Dear Jack,
    The people in Iowa KNOW that the only way to get attention in Iowa is to
    say you are "undecided"! They can get on camera and everything!
    Simply that.
    Just 2 comments:
    Hillary's campaign is over "IF" anything happens to Bill.
    Barock is the worst thing that every happened to IL.
    Nance M. Cain
    Harvard, IL

    December 21, 2007 at 5:23 pm |
  78. Grassy Knoll

    What will cause the voters to decide? Probably common sense and logic–whops, sorry that doesn't work anymore. How about apperance and leadership,
    Whoops, that doesn' happen anymore either. I guess it will be the old race horse factor and the best holiday political ad on TV, that decides who they will pick.... ho, ho ho, hum !

    December 21, 2007 at 5:24 pm |
  79. Lynn

    Are they really UNDECIDED or simply UNINFORMED? Have you even bothered to poll them about the UNDERDOG.. RON PAUL?

    December 21, 2007 at 5:24 pm |
  80. Phyllis

    As with all campaigns, the undicided voters will make their choice based on image.

    Isn't this the reason for slick Hillary's Jekyll and Hyde act? Does she really think the voters of Iowa live in a vacuum?

    December 21, 2007 at 5:27 pm |
  81. Dale

    Jack, it doesn't make any difference, since I live in Oklahoma. We sent Dr. Coburn and an Oklahoma University Quarterback to Washington. Hut, hut, hut, 34,39, 41!

    December 21, 2007 at 5:27 pm |
  82. Rose

    Iowa, Iowa and Iowa, I guess the rest of the country might as well stay home from voting for the primary when all we ever hear is the election is decided by Iowa. Myself I am tired of hearing it all. We have 11 months more of this. Give us a break. My only comment on the Democrats is if John Edwards would run as an independent he would probably win it all but who knows by Nov 08 we may even have Mickey Mouse running. He probably can get just as much money from the internet as the rest of them. Go Mickey.....


    December 21, 2007 at 5:27 pm |
  83. Jerry Dunlap

    Experience, change, and doing battle with large corporations are all serious issues buta they are not the only serious issues, Illegals, war, deficit, healthcare, and mortage crisis just to name a very very limited few Jerry

    December 21, 2007 at 5:28 pm |
  84. Jon David

    Why should the voters in Iowa decide, it will be a waste of their time. Bush said during his last press conference that a republican will win the White House.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:28 pm |
  85. Aaron

    If the administrations of the top-3 are run anything like their campaigns- this will be the most divided country in the history of mankind. Take a look at the experienced-tier. The answer is obvious.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:28 pm |
  86. The Reverend Rex Mckee

    Senator Bernie Saunders, Independent, advised that what we need is a progressive movement, I agree. A movement that pushes back against the corporate structure, Government by the top 1% of the economic scale; leadership that is more committed to international relationships than power, leadership that is focused on the people and not the economy, leadership that has no lack of clarity about universal health care, respecting the integrity of creation, and a strong bias for peace. Of those that are leading the polls I believe that Edwards and Obama most represent a progressive ideology. Perhaps a Obama-Edwards ticket is the better solution.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:28 pm |
  87. Pam Holt

    The mainstream media has been doing our country a great disservice by trying to have us believe there are only three Democratic Presidential Candidates. People need to know about Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a candidate I find to be obviously superior to the other choices. Kucinich has proven with his voting record time and time again that he is smart, insightful, conscientious, and he actually reads what he votes for, pondering the consequences of his votes, and informing his fellow members of Congress things they may have missed when getting "briefed" about a bill or resolution since apparently they are too busy to read these things themselves (and I am speaking of the other Dem. candidates who should all be disqualified from the race for their voting records).

    December 21, 2007 at 5:30 pm |
  88. Kevin in Sparks NV

    We have been subjected to 7 years with an inexperienced president and we all think some new inexperienced presidential wanabe’s should be our president. Rewind all your tapes and really listen to the older experienced candidates, in no particular order: Biden, Dodd, Duncan Gravel, Paul. With that you have a long history of experience in dealing with domestic and international issues. Look at the EXPERIENCE!!

    December 21, 2007 at 5:31 pm |
  89. John Hardwick

    A better woman candidate!
    History has a tendency of repeating itself. Women here got the right to vote before black people did. A woman will become president before a black person does. They just need a more trustworthy woman to vote for.
    So I say, come November 2008, there will be another old white guy headed for the oval office. How sad.


    December 21, 2007 at 5:31 pm |
  90. Gary

    I think as the undecided in both parties learn more about Dr. Ron Paul they will be voting for Ron even if it means they have to cross party lines to vote for a person that is not the same old, same old choice.
    Ron Paul is going to supprise a lot of people.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:37 pm |
  91. Ian Orr

    The experience card that Hillary Clinton claims to hold is nothing more than a joker. Being the wife of a president is about as involved as being the son of a president, and a president's son created the mess that Hillary says her time as first lady has prepared her to clean up. Like Bush, with Hillary comes the baggage of a previous president's conflicts. Her close relationship with Bill Clinton carries his personal conflicts into her politics, while his decision making experience remains his and his alone. Her 'experience' is a crutch and will bring more personal vendettas into American politics. She is a narcissistic puppet in a pantsuit.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:38 pm |
  92. Tony K.

    Hilary seems to be very desperate in her move to the White House by her ads in Iowa, her campaign circulating questions to audience and so on. She is capable of saying anything, doing anything, and being more negative sometimes in order to lure more undecided Iowa voters to her self. Iowa voters just want to do away with the Clinton – Bush dynasty this time around, because leaving the White house in these hand for these long is a disgrace to American democracy. It could be call the new American "Bush-Clintonacracy."

    December 21, 2007 at 5:41 pm |
  93. Angelo

    Zogby said it best, "Ron Paul, He's going to do better than anyone expects. Look to Paul to climb into the double-digits in Iowa. Why? He's different, he stands out. He's against the war and he has the one in four Republicans who oppose the war all to himself. Libertarianism is hot, especially among free-market Republicans and 20-somethings. And he's an appealing sort of father figure. He's his own brand. All he needs to do is beat a couple of big names in Iowa, then New Hampshire is friendlier territory. After all, the state motto is "Live Free or Die."

    December 21, 2007 at 5:41 pm |
  94. Yaron

    Make it easier for people to decide by giving them real options. For example, the "leading candidates" do not even come close to Candidate Dennis Kucinich, but corporate interests are doing everything they can to prevent people from learning about him and his ideas (which include a Not-for-profit healthcare system). For this reason, I'd be very surprised if you share my comment on the air!

    December 21, 2007 at 5:41 pm |
  95. Arthur F. Lueders

    One would think people would take note if the most critical issue the U.S. faces is financial collapse because of our government's Empire mindset with U.S. troops in 130 countries & the unnecesary mideast wars started by our cowboy president.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:42 pm |
  96. John Adkisson


    The truth is that only a tiny fraction of voters show up to caucuses. That means they are active and knowledgable. Most of the undecided voters will decide based upon whether they truly want to change Washington or simply go back to a pre-George Bush comfort zone. The choice is "repeat history" or "make history."

    John Adkisson

    December 21, 2007 at 5:42 pm |


    December 21, 2007 at 5:42 pm |
  98. Marianne Beasley

    Referring to the airline industry comment by the man who said that airlines make him sit next to fat people with only a small armest between them, I take great offense. I AM a fat person. When flying, I am forced to sit next to people of all races, homosexuals, born again evangelicals, Republicans and even behind me, people with smelly, noisy children. Why is it ok to make fun of fat people with ugly remarks but not any of the rest I mentioned? All of you people who don't want to be near fat people, remember this: We have to be near you.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:43 pm |
  99. Ella

    Undecided voters will only caucus if a candidate declares he / she is not a
    free market corporate supremacist like Pres. Bush. The candidate must also
    promise to undo the very large privatized Federal government and replace it
    with a smaller, efficient federal government run by dedicated public
    employee's that work for the public good. They must promise to undo the
    privatization of the military, CIA and Homeland Security and put this
    proposed action in their party platform.
    Save our Republic-Keep Government Public is my motto.

    Ashtabula, Ohio

    December 21, 2007 at 5:44 pm |
  100. John Adkisson


    The Iowa voters are sophisticated because only the most active and knowledgable show up. They know the choice is whether to "repeat history" or to "make history." Undecideds will make up their minds based on whether they have the guts to buck the past.

    John Adkisson

    December 21, 2007 at 5:45 pm |
  101. tim hammer

    How about the truth, we've been pelted with more lies the usual the last 7 years so just the truth would do. The lies Bush has told over the years would have got him hung elswhere! We still don't have a truthful person running.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:45 pm |
  102. Pat Diaz

    Come on, Jack , the people in Iowa are having a blast. Every day a new poll, every day the same people get asked the same questions and get to give a different answer. Really, besides the media, who cares what approximately 100,000 folk in Iowa think? The money and time being spent in this totally unimportant state show how and why politics stink. If you folk would quit breathlessly reporting every heart beat of every voter, maybe we would get some real news. This ain't news, it is very bad entertainment. 24 hours news channels will be the death of a real society.

    December 21, 2007 at 5:49 pm |
  103. Steve

    Jack, like all elections, the polls will dicide the vote in Iowa. American want to back a winner so anyone who does not have strong feeling for a canidate, whoever is winning in the polls will get the undecided vote. We need to do away with polls and have a fair election. We also need to let the press have election night off and not post any returns until all the polls have closed. Lets have a FAIR election in 2008. Keep up the good work. You ask the tough questions

    December 21, 2007 at 5:51 pm |
  104. lem

    If the exponential growth in Congressman Ron Paul's support and donations is any indicator, then being exposed to the good doctor and researching him even a little will cause the undecided voters to enthusiastically make up their mind.

    December 21, 2007 at 6:09 pm |
  105. Tony, Enterprise, Alabama

    I think most voters, even undecideds, have an idea who they favor in the primaries; even if they don't declare. What will seal the deal in these final days is whether their choice can keep it together, and stay on message; or stumbles during the stretch.

    December 21, 2007 at 6:30 pm |
  106. Mark Tross

    I got to tell you, I LOVED your CHRIST-MASS comments the other day and the joke you told regarding Putin. I'm sure many would say you're a tough one, but you really got heart!
    Merry Christmas & Happy New Year,
    Mark Tross
    Rio Rancho, NM

    December 21, 2007 at 6:33 pm |
  107. Ron Amalong


    Unlike most of your discussants, I have nothing clever to say. I just want to know why the evening news on TV is primarily a discussion of the canidates in Iowa. Since Iowa caucuses comprise a minority of Iowans, since most of the caucus participants are men, and since Iowa is insignificant in terms of population and national demographics, why do you dish it up 'til we're nauseous? This exercise in "news-making" influences who are President should be and I find the whole thing a charade of American democracy.

    Have a great 12 days of Holiday. Is that the politically correct way to wish it?

    Ft. Lauderdale

    December 21, 2007 at 6:46 pm |
  108. Walt Jay

    If Hillary is elected, I am moving to Canada. At least they are experienced in doling out rationed socialized health care.

    December 21, 2007 at 6:47 pm |
  109. Brian, Bridgeton NJ


    Why not take that money, and donate it to support programs that Bu$hCo want to slash, like Low Income Heat & Energy Assistance, or Rental & Mortgage Assistance. Maybe the Salvation Army, or soup kitchens, or family shelters. The bonus for one of those employees would make Christmas a much better time for several families who really need the help. Whatever happened to helping out your fellow man during this special time?

    December 21, 2007 at 6:49 pm |
  110. jim miller

    Dear Jack, The undecideds will make up their minds as soon as NONE OF THE ABOVE is placed on the ballot for both parties. Thanks Jack Jim Florida

    December 21, 2007 at 7:01 pm |
  111. Kitty


    I loved your book!

    As a single-African American-parent with a graduate degree in political science, the debate over choices for our next president is very disturbing. Not one candidate is addressing issues single mothers face in this country. Do they think we don't vote?
    Also, I cannot understand why so many are more comfortable with familiar faces than they are with taking this country in a new direction. As much as we replace things before a good layer of dust settles on it, changing direction in our government should be no problem. And let's face it, we are in dire need of change and a fresh start. Those seasoned players who repeatedly talk up their experience are the least likely to walk down a new path that could lift us out of the mess we are in now. I hope voters will stop acting like middle-aged men resistant to change and embrace Obama–not because he is African American but because he is the nation's best chance to repair the damage done by those "experienced" people.

    Denver, CO.

    December 21, 2007 at 7:30 pm |
  112. Karen

    Now we are told, that the economy has replaced Iraq as the most important issue facing the electorate as if these two issues are not related. With what is being spent in Iraq we could afford health care for all, improved infra-structure etc.
    It seems to me that only Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson who speak about this. Don't forget Iraq as an issue.

    December 21, 2007 at 7:35 pm |
  113. Don B

    The people in Iowa are not undecided. They just don't want the Media to name the winner before they can vote.

    December 21, 2007 at 8:02 pm |
  114. Kevin Smith

    The RON PAUL REVOLUTION BABY!!!!!!!!!!!! No IRS!, No Federal Reserve, No WAR! No International Bankers puppeting our country anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Sleeping Giant is AWAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!

    December 21, 2007 at 9:23 pm |
  115. BarbaraParot

    Hillary Clinton's recent attacks against Senator Obama appear to come from a sense of desperation. These attacks just seem to validate Senator Obama's position that we need to get rid of the old Washington machinery and move forward with a new and positive vision. By the way his vision is just not "hopeful" it is also substantive. Attacking him either directly or engaging a political friend of hers to do the attacking, she then apologizes which seems to be her protocol. She knows that despite her apologys the seeds of doubt have been planted. Her associate, Bill, is very good at playing "good-cop, bad-cop", and like President Bush, he thinks we are too naive or stupid not to recognize this game plan. We have to ask ourselves: do we want experience or judgment? This is the question Hillary constantly poses. The current administration had "experience" and look what that experience has brought us. Criticizing Obama's drug use as a young man and charging that this admission will be used against him by the Republicans is absured. Hillary claims that "we've already had a president we could have a beer with." Not so. George Bush is a born again Christian, formerly an alcoholic, was elected President despite his history of alcoholism, so "no Hillary, we cannot share a beer with a President who is a reformed alcoholic." But we did elect a man with a history of alchohol abuse when he was far beyond his youth.

    December 21, 2007 at 11:40 pm |
  116. Jerry

    I have heard much about the "experience" of Senator Clinton. Would be interested in someone detailing the experience that makes her qualified for the Presidency. A junior senator? First Lady? Failed health plan? Questionable investment practices? Misplaced billing records? Guess I just don't get it.

    December 21, 2007 at 11:52 pm |
  117. D'Amoo

    Obama/Edwards anyone?

    Obama has the most energy on the ground – more energy means he'll have the most enthusiastic voters caucusing for him. He is going to win this – you just watch.

    December 22, 2007 at 2:05 am |
  118. midwestern

    After the last 2 presidential elections, I think the American people must be incredibly stupid or just don't give a crap. I think they'll vote for who they 'like' without any regard to logic in any way. How sad. Only those with a power trip or are incredibly vain and self-serving have run for president and the congress in America for about the last 20 years. They haven't got an ounce of humility or logic but yet they run a very important country. Perhaps that is why the rest of the world hates us and sees us as a bunch of inbred loudmouth pious self-rightous a**holes. Gee, could it be that they are right? I don't have much faith in the electorate right now. It seems that Dodd and Biden are the most experienced but neither gets much press. From what I understand after watching a PBS program on Nader's 2000 campaign, the media is running the show as to who gets elected, not the people. The media must be even more stupid than the people considering the current president. Or they are of the same cloth as the current administration (most likely). Why don't you ask Rupert Murdoch who he wants for the next president, that's most likely who will make the choice.

    December 22, 2007 at 4:36 am |
  119. Gregg Davis

    Could it be that Hillary's run for the White House is to find a Monty Lewinsky and get even????????

    December 22, 2007 at 11:28 am |
  120. Mary

    John Hardwick December 21st, 2007 5:31 pm commented:
    "History has a tendency of repeating itself. Women here got the right to vote before black people did. A woman will become president before a black person does. They just need a more trustworthy woman to vote for.
    So I say, come November 2008, there will be another old white guy headed for the oval office. How sad."

    Actually I hate to burst your history bubble John BUT WOMEN DID NOT get the right to vote BEFORE black men did in 1870. WOMEN – both black and white – didn't obtain the right to vote in National Elections until 1920!!

    That being set straight - I'd just like to say that "a bunch of hot air" doesn't put a chicken in my stew pot nor keep a roof over my childrens' heads. Landing a good job requires education, experience, and/or perseverance. Most men in general still think a woman's place is in line behind him!! Bah humbug, Mr. Scrooges.


    It's time to put a WOMAN in the White House who knows how to "roll up her sleeves and clean up the huge mess". It's time to elect a President who we can count on to get our Great Nation back on tract. It's NOT the time for "On-the-Job Training in the Oval Office".

    It is time for Hillary Clinton. We support her all the way.

    December 22, 2007 at 11:57 am |
  121. Frank Rivera

    Clinton is grating and irratating, but there's no denying her experience in American politics. As Martha Stewart would say, this is a good thing. Obama promises change. Hmmm.....where have I heard that promise before. Oh yeah; from every candidate who has run for office from dog catcher to president. I'm still waiting for it, but I'm not holding my breath.

    December 22, 2007 at 1:10 pm |
  122. Ron


    We are continually being told that Hillary Clinton's main claim to credibility as a presidential candidate is her "experience".

    We know of the fiasco that was her effort to develop a national health care plan during her husband's presidency. Thus, the question becomes; what significant legislation has she authored (not supported another's) while she has been in the Senate? The record seems to be rather bare in that regard.

    We have to be careful not to define "experience" as sleeping with the President of the United States.

    December 22, 2007 at 2:09 pm |
  123. George Carman

    JA CK ;Could or would an honest person ever run for office? Give me a lantern.

    December 22, 2007 at 3:53 pm |
  124. Lloyd

    It will be very bad for the American population if Hillary Clinton does not win the election on November 08. We have learnt the lesson of the last seven years, it's dangerous to have the choking influence of the Republican Party in the White House ever again. Every Republican President, it seems to me , has left America sadder than they met it. Thank God November 08 is in our sights.

    December 22, 2007 at 6:38 pm |
  125. eddy of ill

    dear jack,
    i have a social workers license in three states and i meet people of many different beliefs. i have heard frightening things from people who call themselvrs patriots who have promised that a man or woman of color would win the election. i cleaned up the language but i am sure you can decipher my meaning.
    i am glad to know senator obama has secret service protection to try and stop these closet bigots.

    December 22, 2007 at 8:16 pm |
  126. Bob Drummond

    Based on the fact that polls show that John Edwards can beat any Republican candidate I think it's smart to vote for John Edwards if you want a democrat in office. I'm an independant an I supporting John Edwards. I'd like to see all Republicans out of there. Our economy was greatly improved when Bill Clinton was President and you all know where it is today. The same that happened during the Reagan years. The Republicans want to trickle down big business incomes to middle class workers, but it never happens and never will. Millionaires don't become rich by giving anything away. Only by taking. All they have done is trickle our jobs overseas. Lets stop funding war in Iraq and start putting the funds into our health care and educational systems. You just have to ask yourselves which is more important. Fighting an funding a war or taking care of our people here in the USA for a change. Voting for Republicans is a continuation for the war in Iraq and none of them will ever give you a universal health care system. I wouldn't vote for any candidate for president, that doesn't believe everyone in this country's health care, is not more important than the policies this administration has come up with. I pray we make the right decisions!!

    December 22, 2007 at 8:29 pm |
  127. Buff Given

    Growing up as the granddaughter of a Suffregette born only 5 years after women had won the right to vote, and as the daughter of the first woman to be given a driver's license in Iowa it shouldn't be difficult to know who I am backing for President.

    But more than the fact that I sincerely believe the time has come for a woman as President, I am convinced that Hillary Clinton has the intellectual strength and courage to face the nation and the world squarely with policies and actions which will restore our confidence in ourselves and our standing in the world.

    What will Iowans look for? As a Californian, I hesitate to say. I only know them to be pragmatists who want a winner in Nov.08. Hillary will win and be a great asset to our country.

    December 23, 2007 at 12:55 pm |


    Ron Paul INTERVIEW ?
    Not hardly-that Mr. Russert was a "LET ME SHOOT YOU DOWN" program. You did not have one positive question or comment.
    You never once asked about the huge support he has from the public, never once pointed out that "IT'S THE PEOPLE" THAT ARE DONATING TO HIM unlike they are NOT to the other candidates. Never once pointed out that "THE POLLS" are not near accurate. Rommey uses his own money to run the campaign or corporate supplied funds.
    YOU MR. RUSSERT are just part of the controlled media.
    YOU MR. RUSSERT are a huge dissapointment.
    Review your own programs and you will find you did not treat the other candidates the same way. Your policy, where Dr. Ron Paul is concerned, is give him air time but use it against him.
    OK Mr. Russert–your turn.
    Answer for your very slanted "INTERVIEW". I dare you to address this issue on your next program. I doubt that you will but I know for sure it will be the last time MY FAMILY TUNES IN if you don't.
    You are part of what is wrong with this country.

    December 23, 2007 at 2:22 pm |
  129. Steve

    President Clinton stated that voting for Obama is like rolling the dice but isn’t more of a role of the dice to vote for Hillary, when the polls show that when she is match against the front runners in the Republican Party she is barely ahead. Both Edwards and Obama are way ahead of any of the Republican candidates and they don’t have that same name recognition as does Hillary, which mostly likely puts her ahead of Edwards and Obama nationally. The problem with Hillary, among other things, is that she is just too polarizing and status quo and could cost the Democrats the election. Now that’s a roll of the dice.

    December 23, 2007 at 8:11 pm |
  130. Steve

    Why are we to believe that with all of her experience Hillary is best to lead when she can’t even take control of her husband yet alone her campaign. Do you remember the last time a candidate had to apologize so many times in such a short time span, for all the misstatements her campaign members make? The only person who is probably best fitted when it comes to experience for the job is probably a vice president and we are fortunate enough not to have ours run. And to comment about her experience, just because a flight attendant hangs around the cockpit for many years doesn’t mean she can fly the plane.

    December 23, 2007 at 8:13 pm |
  131. Steve

    Hillary claims that the other guys started going negative, however they did not get very personal as she has done. The worst of the attacks was that Hillary is not very genuine which she demonstrated in the end of October debate when she tried to have it both ways with the NY driver’s license issue. She’s throwing everything she can (and yes we all know it’s her). She is the won that said something to the effect that now we are going to have fun. Is your campaign out of control or are your cronies doing your dirty work for you, while you smile snuggle puppies and kiss babies. And if this isn’t intention, then what did you mean when you said it’s going to get fun, what were you talking about if this is not what you meant? There’s only 11 days left until the Iowa caucus, when does the fun begin?

    December 23, 2007 at 8:14 pm |
  132. connie floyd

    I think as soon as the holidays are over the Iowans will make up their minds. Some maybe are going to talk as they get together with family and friends. I just hope that the undecided in Iowa and New Hampshire will not be swayed by campaign slogans and realize this country cannot wait for a newcomer to get his feet on the ground. We'll need a President that can hit the ground running. That would be Hillary Clinton.

    December 23, 2007 at 10:54 pm |
  133. Joe Tyrrell

    Unfortunately, many will not attend and a lot will pick on appearance and apparent self-confidence.

    December 24, 2007 at 8:39 am |
  134. Lloyd M Abrahams CPA

    If the Candidates for the Iowa Caucus read THE CANDU MEMO, it can change the results of the election. The Candidate who uses it will get the keys to the White House and a 4 year lease.

    The Candidates will learn about the VOTE WEAPON – the World's most underutilized and the World's most powerful military weapon which has defeated terrorism every single time it has been used in Iraq..

    If Jack Cafferty reads and discusses on the air the ideas from THE CANDU MEMO, he will be making BREAKING NEWS


    December 24, 2007 at 10:00 am |
  135. Stuart in Ocala, FL

    Is there a double standard in the United States?

    I"m curious...

    If someone sang about the birth of Mohammed in the United States for 5 weeks would they be brought in for questioning?

    How about if we sang about the following for 5 weeks:

    The birth of:

    Lord Ramchandra
    Lord Sri Krishna
    Lord Buddha
    Lord Sathya Sai Baba
    Lord Shirdi Sai Baba
    Lord Sri Ganesha
    Lord Humanji

    I admire Jesus Christ, but I am not sure if there is really diversity in the United States. Is there true diversity in thought and action or is this just lip service?

    I would like to know what others think about this??

    Ocala, FL

    December 24, 2007 at 10:04 am |
  136. Jim Jensen

    Because the media drowns us in hype about the front runners, there are more than a couple of the lower tier candidates that deserve a lot more consideration than they are getting. Right now Barack Obama is the media's knight in shining armor and, with all the media attention he is getting, I'll be surprised if he doesn't win in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In a country where the people are supposed to elect our candidates I find it offensive that the media does it for us. Of the three Democratic front runners I think that John Edwards is the only one who really isn't blowing smoke at us. Of the lower tier, people such as Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have a lot of good answers to a lot of our major problems but nobody will really know to give them serious consideration because nobody really knows what they have to say. On the Republican side Ron Paul is the only one who isn’t singing the same tune as the Man in the Whitehouse sings, but he is looked at as an oddity and that is really a shame because, while he is at odds with Democrats, he also has some interesting ideas that could end a lot of our present grief.

    December 24, 2007 at 11:53 am |
  137. Jay

    When a candidate is pro-choice because it is necessary to be such to win (Massachusetts – Democratic state) and once elected becomes pro-life because that is necessary to win the next position (Republican Presidential nominee), then one needs to question the authenticity in Mr. Romney’s purported convictions. Like the authenticity of being a "hunter" when it appeases the constituency at-hand.

    As for those convictions, Mr. Romney hangs his hat on his so-called reputable business record; I implore the people/press to look under the hood on that record and review the questions below... particularly with his dealings for Marriott, Sodexho Marriott, Damon Co, Bain, and others.

    Is that record so good merely because of all the money that was made? At what cost to others?

    Are tax-sheltered offshore accounts used by Bain?

    Are all those jobs created at Dominos, Staples, Sodexho Marriott and Marriott, Sports Authority, and others actually the ones that help society in general – the positions paying $8-10/hr? Were unions obstructed in any of these workplaces?

    Did these employers above have a record of diversity & inclusion as well as fair employment principles when Mr. Romney was an officer?

    December 24, 2007 at 2:56 pm |
  138. Jimmie Johnson

    Dear Jack:
    Maybe the good people of Iowa should stop blaming the deluge of campaign
    commercials and phone calls, during the Holidays, on the Presidential Candidates ? The voters of Iowa or their Legislature are the one's who chose
    to place their Caucus on Jan. 3rd before the other states and before the Christmas Trees are in the garbage.
    So, don't blame the Candidates when you get a call during Christmas Dinner
    or during the Rose Bowl Game. I was your choice to be first !!!
    Jimmie Johnson
    Paducah, Kentucky

    December 24, 2007 at 7:54 pm |
  139. Robyne

    I'm wondering what EXPERIENCE Hillary Clinton is referring to? Saying she has experience with politics because her husband was the president, is like me saying I have experience with football because I sat in a stadium and watched a game!

    The democrats have failed us in Congress, and think about this...


    Stop the insanity!

    Young people today aren't putting up with it anymore. Hooray for them!

    Merry Christmas, Jack! You rock! 🙂

    December 25, 2007 at 1:03 am |
  140. Michael


    the truth is that i am certain that i will vote Democrat unless literally, all D' candidates declare themselves either nazi or communists. I am disguisted and cannot believe the path to which the current administration led us onto. War, bad economy, healthcare...where to stop!
    It also frustrates me to see people criticize an "active-positive" candidate like Barack with stupid stuff like his :"muslim roots" and experience.(he is only a senator in congress!) Experience!... thats what we should of had after four years of Bush in office, did we make the right choice? Experience, atleast in my opinion, is given too much attention in politics. One should consider that experience has to do with history, and, just like history, the specifically required experience for the designated moment changes aswell.

    December 25, 2007 at 5:10 am |
  141. Daniel Hersey

    Hillary claims that she is the most experienced candidate. So I ask more experience at what? She voted for the Iraq war along side other very experience respectable politicians. Hillary submitting a new health care reform bill to the Senate, planting the full burden of health insurance on my and every other citizen’s lap. In my case I would had lost my health insurance coverage throw my employer, and I would have ended up paying a hell of a lot more for the same coverage, and on top that I would have been force to do so. For an average Citizen to force to pay for the full coverage for health insurance it would cost them $700 to $1000 a month, which is as much as an average house payment. There are many people in this Country that has lost there homes because could not keep up with the payments.
    Thank god!! Hillary’s reform health care bill got shot down, and I am willing to bet that Barack Obama voted against it. Barack Obama also voted against the Iraq war, and warned it being a long dragged out process, costing the tax payer an endless amount of money, that could have been better used fixing things like Medicare or maybe pay back Social Security. And to beat all, our soldier are still not out of that Country.
    Barack Obama made it possible, for the citizens in this Country to monitor on-line on how our Government is spending the Peoples money.
    I don’t know! It seems to me that Hillary may have more time under her belt walking the hall ways of the White House and Capital Hill, But it looks like Barack Obama is a better decision maker. I also read on Barack Obama’s web site that he spent a lot of time help the poor and lower class, before becoming Senator of Iowa. I get the impression If Barack Obama is elected he won’t turning his back on the People, I believe his mission is to listen the Citizens in this Country and actual do something about.

    December 25, 2007 at 9:32 pm |
  142. Matthew

    Here is the most honest answer you'll get. On caucus day, every room where people are deciding someone with the Spark of revolution will talk. The message will be personal freedom, liberty, and peace. I can promise you ever man, woman and child will be where ever most effective to talk about ron paul.
    Secondly think of Venezuela and what transpired with Hugo Chavez, the media tried to lie to the people and stage a military coupe. But truth and freedom will prevail, I support Ron Paul and i can promise you our revolutionary spark will be heard loud and clear in every caucus held in iowa.

    December 25, 2007 at 10:35 pm |
  143. Richard

    "what will cause undecided voters to finally make up their minds? Simple: the last – second batch of lies from the candidates, telling anyone and everyone exactly what they want to hear. Same as it ever was...

    December 26, 2007 at 9:30 am |
  144. Cash

    The dirty tricks of Clinton's troops about Obama will get me and my fellow caucus participants out in force.

    Ms. Clinton has too much baggage. Cigar store Bill, missing papers arriving on her table...If I only new then what I know now...and Vince Foster.

    December 26, 2007 at 12:09 pm |
  145. Robte

    The cat who ran away with the Spoon.

    December 26, 2007 at 2:37 pm |
  146. Aware

    Hillary Clinton has a history of NOTHING.

    Hillary Clinton has not even managed a quickie-mart and you people want her to run this country.

    I guess no one seems to notice how the Bush's and Clinton's have run this country for the last 20 years and yet you ignorant people want them to keep running it? How stupid have democrats become?

    America believes everything the media tells them when it announces "poll numbers". If your vote is no longer a ballot, but a piece of electronic data which can be manipulated then what makes you think you have a voice or your vote is actually worth anything? (The FBI's computer system has been hacked multiple times and yet you people think, "Oh no surely not our presidential election, they have the BEST people working to secure our election results". YOU IGNORANT PEE-ONS. WAKE UP. The U.S. bought half of it's voting machines from a Venezuelan-owned company which Chaves has a hand in.

    The sad part about everything I just said is that it will not be researched. The same people ready to combat my post the second they read it are most likely the same type of people who eat up every word the idiot box/media ingests into them.


    December 26, 2007 at 3:34 pm |
  147. Jerry Wilson

    I don't know who Iowa will decide on............ Who cares?


    December 26, 2007 at 5:33 pm |
  148. THELMA

    the people better vote for CLINTON. shes the one with experience . she just don't talk she will get things done. just remember the good life everyone was living during the years. if barack obama gets it (LORD HELP US ALL). SLEEP ON AND JUST THINK ABOUT IT.................we've been down that road before....

    December 26, 2007 at 8:09 pm |
  149. RD Larson

    The voters in Iowa will d0 just as they've always have done; these voters are smart and have common sense. The undecided voters will evaporate because they will look at the facts, see that the candidate with the most intelligence and best chance of winning the election next year is Barack Obama. Anyone can see that Bill will be tugging on Hilary's strings. We don't need more nepotism or behind the scenes tinkering. People will want an upright person like Barack Obama when the caucuses make their decision.

    December 26, 2007 at 11:15 pm |
  150. Dr. Kibble

    The more people hear and see Ron Paul, the more they like him. That's why mainstream media hasn't given him a fair shake. They are slowly starting to give him more airtime, but it's way too little, too late, if you ask me. Regardless, we are appreciative of what little airtime he does get and for the straight shooting that Jack Cafferty has done in covering him.

    Google Ron Paul
    YouTube Ron Paul

    December 27, 2007 at 12:04 am |
  151. Ray Acosta

    Let's face it, even the news networks don't tell the truth. It seems all of them have a dog in this race. The popularity of Dr. Ron Paul is growing in leaps and bounds, but he never gets recognition from the news media. The only time they mention Dr. Ron Paul is when there is no way to avoid him.
    If ANYONE else wins the presidential election, this country is going to be in a heap of trouble.

    Ray Acosta
    Bay St. Louis, Mississippi

    December 27, 2007 at 10:29 am |
  152. Dago T


    I live in Des Moines. And if the tonnage of Direct Mail I've been getting from Edwards and Dodd and Hillary are any indication of wasteful spending they may partake in in the White House, I gotta vote for someone else.

    And FOUR, FIVE, SIX phone calls per day? I don't even answer the phone.

    I heard Bill Schneider the other day postulate that Iowans are undecided, making polls topsy-turvy. Bill, I've got a theory: Iowans are sick, tired and PO'd with poll takers (I know I am!). I think they're giving B.S. answers to the same old questions for their own amusement.

    December 27, 2007 at 12:06 pm |
  153. Frank Anzalone

    Jack, So far, John Edwards is the only canidate that makes any sense when it comes to all the issues facing America today. However, we must always remember that Corporate America is looking over his shoulder and prepared to spend trillions to make sure he doesn't get the nomination. Wouldn't it be nice to know we would finally get an honest guy in the White House instead of the latest crank that calls himself president.

    December 28, 2007 at 10:16 am |
  154. Maximilian Irving


    NewsCorp is acting against the public interest of this country by excluding Ron Paul from their upcoming presidential forum on January 6th 2008 in New Hamphire. This is a disgrace upon the "democratic elections" in our country to exclude a powerful and influential candidate such as Ron Paul because of difference of opinion on American policy, for a true democratic forum should be precisely about discussing each of the proposed policies by all the influential candidates . What is your response to this exclusion?

    Maximilian Irving

    December 29, 2007 at 4:39 pm |
  155. mike

    Hillary Clinton is my choice. No one else has the experience and knowledge like Hillary, she looks presidential and will represent america best around the world. . For obama he gives great speech but he is not ready, Edward only reason to go to washington is to pick a fight. Edward fight for the poor is old news I think Bill clinton brought more people and minority out of poverty than any other president so i will give that fight to Hillary not Edwards. The Clintons did it before and they can do it again.

    December 29, 2007 at 5:34 pm |
  156. Ralph Marlow

    Its not the economy stupid anymore its the War and who do you trust.. Thats what got Bush reelected. they trusted him. This time people perhaps will be a little more careful. Experience doesn't matter, GW Bush proves that. That only leaves Obama as a person one can trust. Terrorism is not new, Canada had to deal
    with it 30 years ago and they didn't invade another country. Bush is a dictator and is dumping the election into the lap of the democrats. It is theirs to lose.
    Bush is not man enough to say he is sorry nor to admit he made the worst mistake of all times. He is a disgrace to his dad and he is the one I feel sorry for.
    This will put a blemish on his legacy as well. How one gets away with invading any country is beyond me Human rights just went to hell in a handbasket as far as the United States goes. WE torture people. Thats not something I'm proud of.
    The economy is great! if your're a rich republican. Al Gore not getting elected was a blessing for him. He is all the better for it. The reaction to the war will determine the way the election goes. You don't see the ones thats all for the war going to Iraq do you? The ones that didn't want to go are old enough to vote now. I can only guess how they will vote on election day

    December 30, 2007 at 12:33 am |
  157. ed

    It would be nice if Iowa and all states for that matter would decided to vote for the candidate who would look after American citizens 1st. That would rule out the entire Dem party though as they care more about granting their massive amnesty for Illegals than they do the American worker. I voted Dem across the board last time and because of their amnesty agenda I will vote Rep across the board this time. Man I wish we could get a strong 3rd party going in this country.
    I think all the reporters and TV people are a disgrace. They dont ask tough ?. HOw about asking this to every Dem who wants amnesty (I mean pathway to citizenship, wink wink nod nod).
    ?1. Does every Illegal that you want to grant amnesty to have a job yes or no? The answer is no, go to any day labor center any day of the week millions of Illegals just standing around.
    ?2. Since every Illegal doesnt have a job you must want to grant them amnesty so they can depress wages for American workers that you want to make compete wiith them. Or do you just want to give them welfare for vote program. How many American Citizens will lose their assistance so you can give that money to Illegals.
    There are many more ? but those 2 would be a good start. How about it Wolf.

    December 31, 2007 at 3:11 am |
  158. Kay

    One thing I have heard mentioned but not talked about in depth – Obama's religion. He and most candidates are advocating the pre-school for at least 4 year oldsl Why? Because as most know the younger you reach children, the more likely what they learn will stick with them and help them to continue achieving higher goalsl The Bible teaches "Train up a child in the way he should go and he will not depart from it." What was is training in those critical early years with a radical Muslim father and step father? When did he join the "christian" church he now belongs to? I hope it was many, many years before he considered a political career or was it a politically correct move. Something to think about people. What better way to destroy this country from within, something I have heard all my life(I am now 65). One other point to think about.
    Oprah! As much as I like her as a person, wasn't it Oprah that tearfully appeared before us just recently apologizing for the deplorable situation in "her" Africcan school by the head person which she played a hands on part in selecting? I like Oprah and think she has done a lot of great things, but her judgement of people obviously is lacking.

    December 31, 2007 at 6:32 am |
  159. Mattie Webb

    Oh my goodness. Have we fallen into the trap laid by the morons running for office? Yup! Here we are discussing religion with passion and vigor on the campaign trail. And no – the voters won't decide. They will go to the polls with their emotions, not their brains. That's how we got the present administration.

    We should be sending the message to the candidates that we are not interested in the race card, the religion card, the abortion card or the sexual preference card, to name a few. These are all covered by our Constitution. Rather, how are these people qualified for office? What are their ethics? Not Christian ethics, not Buddhist ethics or Rastafarian ethics. What are their ethics as applied to running this country?

    The irresponsible among the press delight in sensational issues because they stir people so passionately and sell news. There are few among the press/TV journalism illiterati who care about anything more than getting their name or their face in the public eye. Yet, I would bet you a cookie that if you departed from the sensationalism that is this campaign and asked a candidate an intelligent constitutional question, you could not get an intelligent answer.

    Aren't we lame to buy into the "loaves and fishes" of the campaign trail. We gobble them up and find we have only red herrings.

    Why, Jack, has most of the press (except ABC's Stossel) ignored Ron Paul. Because he has played none of the sensational cards. Loaves and fishes or red herrings. What do you what on your table in 2008 . Mattie Webb

    December 31, 2007 at 3:51 pm |
  160. Mattie Webb

    Corrupt, lying, cheating morons – all of them on the campaign trail. Except for Ron Paul – Republican but 180 degrees from any other Republican you know. Google RonPaul2008. I have changed my party/voter registration to be able to vote for Ron Paul in the Primary. By the way, closed primaries play to the unscrupulous party system and deny us all our constitutional right to vote our true choice in the primary. I have never donated to a campaign or displayed bumper stickers or such. I donated to Ron Paul and have a bumper sticker and a sign in my yard. My first – and my last if any of these other jokers make it to the White House.

    December 31, 2007 at 4:07 pm |
  161. Katy Hill

    Once the hollidays are over and people wake up to find, to their amazement, that seven years of Mr. Bush's attempts to democratize the world have all gone up in smoke they will get serious and actually start looking at who can best clean up the mess this administration has made.

    January 1, 2008 at 9:43 am |
  162. Daniel Hersey

    Welcome back Jack
    How were your Holidays? OOP!!! It looks like; you lost another hair, Jack!
    It most of been a rough one.
    Better call for ward-robe!! Didn’t feel bad, Jack !
    I lost three, super glue does wonders.

    I have a bone to pick with the American people
    All I herd last years, was pissing and moaning, and whining and crying, protesting and shouting about the Iraq War. And I had about enough of it, so I took a more productive approach on the matter. I E-mail Senator John Warner, he quickly responded bringing me up to speed, on the obstacles and the problems that our soldiers where faced with. Senator John Warner had to be careful of what he could tell me, do to National Security. I had found, though it has been about 20 years since I served, that my Military training in the U.S. Army as a Combat Engineer, proved be a very valuable asset in my mission of writing Senator Warner. My Mission was and still is to save as many of my fellow soldiers live as I could. Though I was limited to information, I tried my hardest to come up with a tactical solution to Resolve, and bring warning to a potential danger. I received periodic responses in the mail from Senator John Warner; thank me and encouraging me to write more. To this day I do not know, if anything I wrote help save a life. But I can say this, I did not piss or wine or cry, bite or scratch, yell or scream, or even insult any body in my writings to Senator John Warner and the White House, I was incomplete focus in helping my fellow soldier, and to bring resolution to the best of my ability.
    I do not wish nor ask for anything in return for my efforts, give it to some body that has earned it, if you don’t who that might be. I will you give a hint, how about our soldier that has fallen in the line of duty, and our soldier who are permanently scared and disable in the line of duty from this conflict.

    And another thing
    You can blame the Bush administration until hell freezes over on the war Iraq. But the bottom line is, the President came not engage this Country into a military Conflict with out the permission and approval from both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

    Both Presidential Candidates John McClain and Hillary Clinton vote (YES) on the Iraq war. They both claim the have the most experience above and beyond the remaining candidates to run this Country. Apparently they did not do there home work on Iraq before Voting. And we all have suffered great loses because of
    Presidential Candidates Barack Obama voted (no) on the Iraq war. Every thing that Barack Obama warned that would happen has happen in that conflict, and it is still going on.
    It is none of my business who you vote for, but I high recommend before making your mark on any voting Ballet, You educate your self on the issues, by going to( barrackobama.com) and read everything on that website.
    I am sure when you are done, you will know who to vote and why.

    January 1, 2008 at 10:45 am |
  163. RIco Mike

    Why hasn't anyone focus on the racist comments that Oprah makes , she once said, she would support Obama or Candeleeza Rice if either would run for president. They are two worlds apart when it comes to their views and political policies, now why would Oprah be willing to support either, if they're so different in ideas, the only thing that they have in common is that they are black. One question for Barack Obama, Why are you embracing Oprah's support? when she is clearly making this campaign racial, by promoting separtists messages. She keeps quoting MLK, in a twisted way to pin blacks against whites. To me that's racist and dangerous.

    January 1, 2008 at 6:21 pm |
  164. Ted Crofoot

    Hello Jack,

    John Edwards has publicly declared his intent to put an end to the gross abuses perpetrated on the working people of this country by large corporations as well as his opposition to further big media consolidations.

    On today's edition (January 1st) of "The Situation Room" Wolf Blitzer referred at least twice to John Edwards indirectly (cleverly worded) as an "angry candidate", then he posted a huge photo of Ralph Nader next to a much smaller section of the screen with Edwards photo in it (not very subtle).

    I feel that the media in general – CNN included, has exhibited a bias against John Edwards. Do you think perhaps Time-Warner might be a little nervous about the Edwards campaign?

    Omaha, Nebraska

    January 1, 2008 at 7:26 pm |
  165. Bruce Marshall

    Jack a caucus is a joke, I live in Maine and went to one, Just one, you stand around and keep going to different parts of the room. I was standing in a corner for an hour or so. Never again. Do away with the caucus, I should be able to vote and not have the town know who I voted for in a caucus they do.

    January 2, 2008 at 4:24 pm |
  166. Jim Comyns

    All primaries should be held on the same day. To many people let previous primaries sway their votes. I nominate April fools day.

    January 2, 2008 at 6:52 pm |
  167. Andi

    We want to vote for Lou for president. We think you would be a great vice president. Keep up the good work. Iowa is a joke and so are all the candidates. Politicians only say what they think will get them elected, then when they do, all their promises go unkept.

    January 2, 2008 at 7:08 pm |
  168. Lauren

    I'm an Iowan, and to be honest, i just decided who i was going to caucus for tonight, so yeah, i guess a lot of iowans do wait until last minute. a lot of people say that obama's college voters won't be home to vote during their winter break, but most college students in Iowa live here, so i don't think that will be a big issue. I believe that this caucus will be a record turn-out, and i also think that obama will upset hillary and win the state.

    January 2, 2008 at 8:25 pm |
  169. zach

    Hey Jack,
    Obama loves to talk about change. How can he bring change without experience?
    Hillary's experience has seen the good and bad of this country. Her experience has the power to make a real positive change in this country. Barack is a great person but how can you a trust him and his promises? Bush vowed to make change and look where we are now!

    January 2, 2008 at 8:44 pm |
  170. Kevin

    A lifelong Democrat here, but if Obama ends up being the Democratic nominee, I will vote for the independent candidate – should there be one. This country will never be ready for a black president!

    January 3, 2008 at 6:34 pm |
  171. Ron H.

    Will Huckabee stand by his 23% tax in NH? Will he change colors from Evangelical to Catholic? If Thompson stays in, Huckabee will probably come in 6th in NH. It's going to be interesting to see if he stands by his convictions, or turns into a political camillion, changes colors in each state.

    January 4, 2008 at 10:15 am |
  172. James Morgenroth

    I do not understand how Senator Clinton can claim foreign policy "experience."

    Are we to believe that she sat and talked politics with her unfaithful husband over coffee in the mornings; asking him for advice regarding the actions of foreign leaders or the inner workings of the CIA – which we know she had no access to....

    Or was she more interested in who, besides Monica, would be in the Oval office that day.

    I know the Senator is smart and calculating and all that but she is still a women.

    January 4, 2008 at 11:56 am |
  173. RaymondSnyder

    When is the news media going to stop all the hype about iowa aand new hampshire. The nominee for each party will be sellected at their conventions next summer. There will not be any republicans or independants at the democrat convention. Iowa and newhampshire are small states with few delegates to the convention and due to the close vote they will be split evenly three ways. Brazil, In

    January 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm |