An Obama-sponsored bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s…

Guess who's more ethical and principled and has the better voting record.

Gushing over him, gushing in advance over every moment's indication that Clinton was going to quit after losing New Hampshire (she is in the best position to remain in the race after Feb 5 even if she's not in first place overall!) … and it's simply comical, the distorted hindsight (ranging into the delusional) in attempting to explain what happened and predict what will happen next.

“Progressive” as used in this context by you and others always has been a misnomer.

I'm surprised that Clinton hasn't tried to latch the older-voter vote, in order to proceed to attack the other groups, by saying she's the most qualified on Social Security and Medicare, and that anyone else but her threatens the security of these programs.

I would not be surprised if she bussed in some older voters (where are the Iraqi-style IEDs in the road when they'd be so much appreciated?) — on a shopping or gambling trip, yes, that's it. They just happened to stop by (multiple) polling places, heh, heh.

I'm looking forward to the Clinton “subway voters” in both New York and New Jersey on February 5.

Cosmo- Obama voted present over 100 times in the state Senate. Not exactly a profile in courage. He can criticize Clinton for voting for the war, but I'm not convinced he wouldn't have done the same since he's matched her vote for vote on funding it.

Kritt: Don't vote for the enablers. What you are saying is why Hil shd not be Prez- she blows w the wind and folds under pressure.

Even the guys on cnn said last night that Obama is considerbly left of Clinton and hes going to have to pony up. What I see transpiring in the Democratic party is the PROGRESSIVES are themselves trying to take the party Hostage.

The very thing they scream in anguish about the FAR RELIGIOUS RIGHT is exactly what they themselves are trying to do. Take the party hostage with their far left “PROGRESSIVE” agenda.

It is why I have chosen to endorse Hillary. She is left actually but I think she will have moderate stances that include all Americans. After 8 years of a president in which its only been the right that matters, the Progressives want to take the White House hostage and make only the left matter.

Obama is a far left Idealogue thats going to have to fess up. He is no uniter. If anything he will be as big a divider as we could ask for in the White House.

The electorate are sheeple, and change only when desperate. The Iowans were a bit more moved to change while those in NH were not.

And Hill's 'experience' is what made her an enabler to this war you hate, rather than stick to principles.

Reporters from NH who appeared on C-span observed that race has not been a real factor up in their state, and Obama DID gain ground in NH after his Iowa victory. It seems like a destructive topic, since no one can prove it either way and even if they could, nothing would change. I look at Obama as having the ability to reach past the old boundaries and hit on new themes with younger voters , despite the fact that he hasn't even been in the US Senate for a full term and lacks the extraordinary connections of the Clintons. From that perspective, he's doing astonishingly well.

But as I am fond of saying, polls are a snapshot in time and that time ends before a voter enters a polling place.

It is my view that Obama stayed pretty steady but Clinton surged at the very, very end. That is not poor polling, that's something that is impossible to poll.

Pick a reason for Hillary's surge. Mine is that there was an 11th hour epiphany about her among a fair number of voters who looked themselves in the eye and realized that the choice was between charm and experience . They opted for experience.

And your right, you can't have it both ways. I agree with Tom Brokaw; we all will just have to wait and see until the final vote is counted. Sorry. Predictions mean squat in this presidential race.

When it seemed Hillary was losing, women whined it was sexism- just look at the comments here: http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blo… and here: http://themoderatevoice.com/society/sexism/1694…

It was not sexism that put O ahead, nor was it racism why he lost.

NH is an old state, w fewer kids. The seniors turned out, the kids did not, and the indies wanted to have McCain beat Romney more than O beat Hill.

But, now people are already talking of Hillary as inevitable again.

Sheeple, and they are the problem, not the candidates.

Dr. E's post on the pollsters is something all should read: http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/voting/169…

Polling is not a science any more than psychology nor economics are.

BTW, Joe: Can you make the Disqus comment boxes larger? I can only see 2-3 lines max when typing. It's really annoying.