mullah cimoc say two thing:

Giuliani him make big ashame for all ameriki.

first thing, him take him slut to live in government house while still the marry? Am this "conservative value" ameriki?

him business partner kerrick Giuliani almost make the homeland security czar of usa but now the investigate and hearing of the whores and the rich man condo on policeman salary. Am him the clean police? Conservative values ameriki?

him to serving the homosexual and disobey him bible, but still acting the proud. him to wanting man to marry man, man to marry donkey, and woman to marry the woman. so sick and show the destroy of ameriki society.

him Giuliani to obey every command of masters in tel aviv. him like puppet on fish line. am this make the geo. washington and benjamin frankling proud?

now the republican of ameriki having so many the gay homosexual like the kink sex act, corruption and cruel---now just opposite---not the family value, this the filthy corruption and amerika to be suffer maybe the earthquaking so terrible?

second point: How possible for usa media not tell ameriki people him giuliani father "Harold Giuliani" mafia loan shark enforcer serve him time at sing sing prison. usa media not the free. so control.

for him true info: [email protected] for him aemriki learn.

I haven't taken the specific poll you mentioned, but I can say this: On the polls I have taken you can't really say you don't trust either party. Thats where many of us are at. Bush just doesn't matter much anymore and will matter less as the months go on. One could say he is not relevant anymore.

There is no easy answer in Iraq, it is going to have to go by feel and change as the need arises. Bush didn't handle it well, but then at the time he was backed by most of Congress in both parties, and the majority of the people. I never thought it was the right "war", but then I thought we should use opportunites to avoid Afghanastan. Iran may become more of an issue, but it seems most people are ok to use military there now.

Not necessarily the terrorism, but secure borders could become an issue. Most people don't seem to quite understand how porous our borders are. Its not just illegal immigration, or terrorism, or drugs, or crime, its many things, including quite a few weapons going down to Mexico apparently. After reading the GAO reports and a few Congressional Reports, its just astounding how little we do to protect our borders, and how much we overwork the people that actually do the work.

Illegal immigration is an issue that seems to affect every other economic issue including healthcare. There are those who say illegal immigration is helpful to the U.S. economy, and I suppose it is by some measures. However, most of us don't live our lives by those measures, we live our lives by the measures that are affected adversely by illegal immigration. We live with the fastest growing population in the industrialized nations, it affects our schools, our jobs, our healthcare, our enviornment, and much more of our lives. The Democrats seem to want to "own" these problems without taking for their part in the illegal immigration problem and responsibility for solving it. Their solutions are legalization of those here and tepid enforcement if any. They do not respect the views of the citizens on this issue, rather they slam any view contrary to theirs as "racist, nativist, xenophobic". They are out of touch with everyone but the elite progressive, upperclass on this issue.

Oh, we also don't care about Guiliani's love life, its his other issues, nor do we care about the Clinton's love life, its other issues. The Republican in the bathroom should have been and should be continued to be treated like any other citizen. Its very ingenous of the Dems to attack him for apparent homosexuality yet say homosexuals should not be treated differently because of thier sexual preference. This type of behavior from the Dems has turned me and others away from them. They do not hold themselves to their own standards, which makes them no different then Bush and the Republicans we were so frustrated with.

We can go to the polls and blame the Republican's for Bush & cohorts, if we do we will likely end up with the same thing in Democrat clothes. We don't need that. More then anything we need a leader that will do the right thing for this nation, putting the nation and its citizens before the party, a leader that will be trustworthy and honest, and respects all of us. I cannot say that I see that in any of the candidates yet. I do hope that one will show themselves to be what we need in a President, win, and then be that.

Winz

Your post is about the best I have seen here. I agree totally. What we need now is a leader who represents all of the people of America and not another politician. Sadly, all we are getting a partisan politicians. Great posting.

Regardless of how you interpret the polls, what counts in Presidential elections is the ELECTORAL vote, not the general vote. The polling data this early just doesn't go state-by-state so it's basically irrelevant. Much was made in 2000 and 2004 that nobody has won the presidency without carrying at least one southern state (neither Gore nor Kerry did). Florida's demographics have turned more red since 2000, as demonstrated in 2004. The big question I have is: What southern state can Hillary carry? So it all comes back to Ohio again. Rudy and Romney are both northern (supposedly socially moderate) Republicans who may play well in place like OH and PA.

The Republican base is currently shell-shocked and demoralized and does not seem to approve of any of their candidates. The only way a Republican can win is if Hillary wins and scares them all back to the polls.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm increasing coming to view Hillary as unelectable, regardless of whether her views are more in line with those of Americans than the views of any Republican candidates. Once the GOP attack machine hits its stride next summer, her negatives will increase still further ... and they're already extremely high. Edwards and Obama drew some blood from Hillary just by getting a little negative. The GOP will draw a lot more blood. They're going to make most Americans view her candidacy the way most progressives currently would view a Jeb Bush candidacy -- you can sum it up in two words, "enough already."

The list of Republican candidates is so weak it is pathetic, and yet if Hillary runs (just like if Jeb ran), the election would be a referendum on the candidate with the oversized name. In short, if the Dems want to win the White House, they should go for any candidate OTHER THAN Hillary (or Kucinich or Gravel, obviously). Anyone else, in my opinion, would win. And in the cases of Obama and Richardson, they just might win in a landslide.

Daniel, the Republicans are just as strong if not stronger than the Dems. Edwards and Obama are basically one term senators and that's it. Until 7 years ago Hillary did nothing but be there while her husband held office. And as a senator she's voted exactly the wrong way on Iraq. Giuliani was a successful mayor of NYC and held many offices, Romney was a gov and very succussful in private business. This is going to become a major issue once the election reaches the R vs D stage.

Seems to me, every Democrat running would beat any Republican running. That's the trend in every poll I've seen. The difference is that Obama and Edwards would make it a historic landslide, and have the coattails to ensure the defeat of Smith and many, many other Congressional Republicans. Both would put many southern states, even in the deep south, into play, for different reasons (appealing to white, or black southerners while the GOP nominates a non-southerner that they don't trust).

Clinton would win too, and would carry Oregon handily, but without coattails. The South would mostly go GOP as usual, but some combination from among Ohio, Missouri, West Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and Arizona would pull her over the top. And even Clinton would be competitive in the Southern states of Virginia, Arkansas and Florida.

The difference is that Obama and Edwards would make it a historic landslide, and have the coattails to ensure the defeat of Smith and many, many other Congressional Republicans.

Thank you Admiral. Absolutely correct. If Mrs. Clinton is the nominee, we can kiss goodbye the prospect of ridding ourselves of that awful 90% bushie, Smith. What is with her economic advisor bragging on cspan last week about her collaboration with Smith? Please, no clinton.

Me is agreeish with mullah cimoc who say thing that is truer. You see soon to. You see

Oh, how far we've fallen. John Adams toiled briefly on his farm when he was informed that he had been elected president. He then hitched up and made the journey to Washington. No campaigning, no $$ spent on getting out the message, etc. Today a campaign is a war-like competition. When the dust clears, we expect those highly contested competitive juices to recede and a spirit of cooperative governing to prevail. Where all points of view are respectfully debated and the resulting legislation, balanced, fair, and most importantly beneficial to our well being. It seems that politically charged competition is at the root of public dissatisfaction with the institution. Perhaps after the election, before the governing begins, we should gather all newly elected officials for a game of dodge ball. You know, just exorcise the demons before starting the session.

Hi,

I'm not at the moment impressed with polling numbers to tell me who will likely win, or who has a better chance.

I am interested in someone who is consistent and not just someone who's fresh out of political school.

So, I rate my candidates at this point:

1) Ron Paul 2) Dennis Kucinich 3) Fidel castro

I have never voted for a Republican because they've all seemed wrong on war and social issues. I will vote for Paul if he's on the ballot against anyone, primarily he seems the most serious candidate against the wars.

I will vote for Kucinich if he's around, but he seems to have less impact and influence.

I will vote for Fidel unless the other two here are on the ballot because none of the rest of them have appealed to me.

I gave up on the Democrats a little while ago because they're weak on peace, slovenly on the rule of law, and cowards as a group on the floor of Congress.

Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Murtha, etc are driving the poll numbers down every week. They have shown themselves to be ineffective wind bags. A lot of ranting, not much action. They're captive to their masters, the unions, farmers, left wing nut jobs, etc. That was fine when they were in the minority and everyone expected them to spend their time ranting and raving. Now they're in the majority and they are supposed to work across the aisle and get some stuff accomplished. So far they haven't done much of anything except continue to posture. 50 years from now the history books will say something like this about Pelosi. "first woman elected speaker of the house, generally considered to be ineffective and was quickly forgotten".

Let's make this real simple. How much pain has she caused Shrub? How about the average Democrat?

She has actually been very effective. She has taken the Dems, IMHO, fully 1/2 of the way to the end of the party. She has used every method she disparaged while running, delivered none of her constituent oriented promises. She tried to make up with the "genocidal Ottomans" resolution, but has backtracked saying that it might not be do-able. She can't even get a non-binding resolution for her base. Not that it was a good idea. Horrid policy at the moment, but a symptom nonetheless.

She and Hillary are really threatening the party's existence. Voters have seen that it makes no difference who controls the Congress. They're likely to see the spectre of Hillary talking business as usual on things like the War on Drugs (Bill doubled the federal prison population all by himself, 90% nonviolent) and John McCain saying that he would leave issues like that up to the States. Wake up! If there is no difference in the two parties, do you think both will continue? Which do you think will go? The Dems have become Reps, not the other way around. Actually, in that sense, you're already gone. Met AG candidate Kroger in the flesh? Brings back memories. Makes you say, "Hey, those other people aren't Democrats, who are those people, anyway"?

Put another way, you ripped off everyone that voted Dem last year. Many will not make the mistake again. Ever.

I agree. Viva Fidel, Essex girls and la liberation!

<hr/>