In response to your post, at critical times in our nations history, “conventional thinking” and the “status quo” have been successfully challenged to bring about necessary, ground-breaking change and advancement.  We are at such a time again.  So what you're witnessing, the ever-growing groundswell of support, enthusiasm, inspiration, and belief in Obama's ability to lead and bring this country together to restore our unified greatness at home and abroad, is real and will prevail… despite any narrow-minded thinking that's wedded to the ghosts of the past.

These early polls are a better reflection of familiarity and media attention, rather than commitment. Actually, a better way to look at this is to ask why the three so-called front runners, Obama, Clinton and Edwards, haven't been able to muster up larger percentages due to all of the media coverage they have received?

I have been stumping for Chris Dodd. Iowans are just starting to learn about Chris Dodd, and the timing is good becauce were are nearing the stage where caucus goers are starting to make up their minds. He just started running state wide ads on television and radio that caucus goers will observe and be impressed with.

Dodd's network is in place. This article notes that he has a talented staff, and he does, all over the state. Additionally he has the support of the firefighters who are starting to rev up their engines.

Democrats want to nominate a candidate that can win the election. The three front runners all have flaws in this area. Obama has the “inexperienced” tag, Clinton has high negatives and has had poor debate performances which will provide ad clips for the Republicans next fall if she is nominated, and Edwards, who has been stumping in Iowa for four years, has little to show for the effort as well as a poor performance in the last election in delivering southern states, which a southern candidate should do. (Edwards even lost his home state of North Carolina).

Democrats need to recognize and nominate a candidate that Americans will vote for next November. Chris Dodd is the candidate who can win. His accomplishments are impressive during his time in Washington: Dodd was a peace negotiator in Northern Ireland and Central America, ending wars there. Dodd authored and fought for the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act which has helped over 50,000,000 Americans. The Combating Autism Act, the passage of the first child care legislation since WWII, The work he has done for Head Start, are just  a few of his accomplishments that have changed this country for the better. This doesn't even mention the work he has done in Washington during the campaign season to restore Habeas Corpus and restore our Constition. He has done it by reaching across the isle to find common ground with opponents. That is what Americans want to see in their president, a person who can deliver results and avoid bi-partisan posturing for the good of our nation.

The top three candidates talk about “change”. Talk is cheap. Chris Dodd has made a career out of making changes to improve our nation. Dodd has the experience to make the changes needed to get our country on the right path. Democrats need to nominate a candidate with experience making changes, which is what Americans voters are looking for rather than mere promise makers who may not deliver. Experience making change counts. Dodd has a record of getting the job done. That's why and I am going to caucus for Chris Dodd at the Democratic caucuses here in Council Bluffs.

After letting my paranoia run wild, I came up with some plausible answers: (i) Republicans and a Republican nominee would rather run against Obama, knowing fully well that no Southern state would ever vote for a non-Caucasian for president (people seem to have forgotten the recent Ford “incident”, with the white female – after that ad. was aired, it went downhill for Ford, who lost that election. In the case of Obama, they would use his white mother – Jim Crow's mysiogynist – and his Black African, not African-American, father's Muslim religion to pound him to pulp in the campaigns); (ii) Obama is blinded by the crowds that he really believes America, white America, will vote for a Black person to be their president; (iii) most of the Obama enthusiasts are Republican plants, put there to divert media attention and coverage of candidates who will beat any of the Republican presidential hopefuls out there. I mean candidates like John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and even Hillary. Because the less media coverage of the other Democratic candidates, the less nationally-known they are…!!

Why else is the media reporting and talking more about Obama's large crowds, Oprah's bonding up with Obama, and almost nothing on John Edwards health care plans, taxes, his stance on the Iraq war; or nary a pip about Chris Dodd, Joe Biden or Bill Richardson's speech or campaign. It's all about Obama and Hillary 24/7. Two candidates the media and Republicans know a Republican candidate could easily swiftboat into the loser's corner in a presidential election!

Former Rep. Ford and Howard Dean's experience in 2006 and 2004 respectively, have taught me to be cynical and skeptical of media-hyped candidates; especially one that happens to be, like me, a person of color.

I like Obama, but I don't think he stands a ghost of a chance winning a presidential race against a white male Republican candidate. His skin color, his father's background and religion, and the fact that his mother's white are factors Republicans will use to neutralize him in the South. Republicans know this, as do the media. But mum is the word, and the charade continues to be played in the newspaper articles and op. eds and on TV and the radio….While fox noise cannot get enough of Edwards and Clinton attacks, Obama on the other hand, baring the comedic play on his name and that he's a Muslim, is rarely mentioned or attacked like the other Democratic candidates…..That says a lot, doesn't it? 

I just don't get it.

Second, I believe Ron Paul has by far got a lock on the drug culture with his implied “legalize everything” message.

I agree with your ranking of Obama on top. I'm not sure if I'd  switch Edwards and Hillary around or not. I think both campaigns are in a funk, and I'm not sure who's predicament is worse. Strategically, I like Hillary for second, since she gets nearly all of the second-choice Richardson support. I also like her larger organization which means more resources going into the last minute push. I guess I'd have said Hillary over Edwards, but barely.

It's all going to come down to which of us (Edwards or Clinton) gets their mojo back first…

Obama is winning now. Check the dates on your polls before you make wild claims – especially since Edwards and Obama came out of the debate in a much stronger position based on their performances according to multiple *unbiased* sources.