I have lived in North Carolina, and I do not think Barack could beat McCain in a general election there.

In general, NPR needs to stop spinning Barack up, and Hillary down. Barack would never be a be able to win against McCain in a general election. I am a Hillary supporter, but I do not work for her campaign. I am a Democrat who wants what is truly best for our country - what we need at this time -our most qualified Democrat in the White House.

Here is why:

Some independents and swing voters may like some of what Barack says now...

National polls showed that people thought Hillary would do the best job as Commander in Chief.

The more people think about it, the more they will want the person who they know is most qualified, would work the hardest, and do the most efficient and effective job governing our country.

We are seeing as the tide turns, and we get closer to the actual election, what is really at stake is how what is most important to people is security.

Security for the country. Security for the economy.

Security of known candidates who have proven themselves with national experience vs. an unknown candidate with very little national experience.

A lot of those who voted for Hillary in Ohio would never vote for Barack.

They would vote for McCain.

These people are practical, pragmatic realists who don't want to mess around.

Nobody wants to take chances at such an important time.

Even in Texas where he outspent her 3 or 4 to 1, people know what's at stake.

They don't want an inexperienced candidate.

Barack will do as much if not more to rally the Republican base. You really think they're going to want an 'inexperienced anti-war liberal' like Barack to be their president?

No - they know that Hillary is truly more of a contender against McCain than Barack.

By the time their 527 ads get done with Barack - it won't be pretty at all.

He has no idea what's potentially coming. The Clintons have only raised legitimate questions about his experience and dealings - asking people to think.

The Republicans will be ruthless and unkind and will actually scare the chitlins out of people and it will work with the swing voters, because of all his inexperience and because he is so untested and unknown.

No matter what he says.

People will want proof. And there's not enough.

Hillary is a better opponent against McCain because ultimately people will want what is best for security and the economy.

Hillary will be smarter on security.

And smarter about the economy.

She would outshine McCain in the debates.

People would realize she's truly the one most qualified to help our country.

And that voting for her to work for them, is in their own best interest.

Hillary is battle scarred, but she is also tested and her husband have both proven their national and international experience and their competence for helping the economy.

Barack has a promising future, but until he had more national experience, until he has more proof of what he can do, people won't trust him.

And for those who will try to pull the race card into this - it's not about race - it's about proven national experience. There is still some sexism and racism, but for most of the swing voters, the issue is proven qualifications for who is to be President of the United.

Sent by Lauren | 1:17 PM ET | 03-07-2008

Lauren,

I have no idea what "proven national experience" hillary has, and I am pretty sure she will rally the republican base.

Yes. I will vote for her if she wins the dem primary but I think she will lose a national election, and this is is something we cannot afford.

Sent by Carla | 1:56 PM ET | 03-07-2008

A fifty-megaton thermonuclear warhead is somewhere in the vicinity of four thousand times more powerful than the Hiroshima atomic bomb.

The United States possesses the world's largest and most powerful nuclear arsenal.

The President of the United States is entrusted with the launch code for America's nuclear arsenal.

Take a look at your children. How much are you willing to 'gamble' on who is the President with a finger on the red button?

Obviously every primary and every delegate is important. The closer an election, the more important that makes each and every primary, and each and every delegate.

The Constitutional question remains that the voters of Florida and Michigan spoke. At this point, it will most likely require legal and congressional investigative measures to determine what are the Constitutional Rights of the voters of Michigan and Florida.

When you are talking about fifty-megaton nuclear devices, and you are also talking about disenfranchising any state's voting rights, you are talking about the necessity of professional and expert legal declaration.

The major question is if any state's voting constituency is denied their voice in who controls America's nuclear arsenal, that is a question that is too large to be left up to generalized guessing.

The American Constitution is built on the foundation of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. Take away any one of the three Constitutional guarantees of America, and the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and the American Constitutional system has been weakened.

All primaries are important to one extent or the other, particularly in a close national election. Rhode Island can turn out to be as important as California in a close national election.

To deny any state it's Constitutional voting rights is to question the very authority of the American Constitution.

There are experts in Constitutional Law.

They must be consulted. Rullings must be made.

fred camorra call

Sent by fred camorra call | 2:08 PM ET | 03-07-2008

I think Hillary & Obama have earned their just reward. There's a reason they have primaries (caucus) in EVERY state--to make sure that nobody is left out of the electoral process. Both candidates took a calculated risk by knowingly bypassing fringe states. Now, the process has shown its strength, and the party is crying foul. Oh well, maybe they can both run as independent candidates...haha

Sent by Jim W | 2:44 PM ET | 03-07-2008

I live in Missouri and Lauren has expressed my sentiments exactly. Barack may look good at first glance, but when it comes time to cast a ballot, he just doesn't have the experience. The world is a scarey place and we don't have the luxury of allowing Barack on the job training. He is too untested - and pales in comparison to Hillary and McCain. He may be ready at some point, but not yet.

Sent by Jean | 3:14 PM ET | 03-07-2008

I'll be voting for Obama if I can. I don't see how Clinton is any more "tested" than him, but McCain is without a doubt more than qualified for the job.

If Clinton is the nominee, I'll be voting for McCain because frankly she scares me. I am comfortable with Obama and comfortable with McCain--but I'd lean towards Obama simply to flush out Bush appointees from the executive branch.

Sent by Ron | 4:22 PM ET | 03-07-2008

What caused Bush to make the decisions he has? His value system, his character, his honor or lack thereof. I'm voting for Barack because of his value system, his character his honor. and brilliance.
Bill Clinton is the 800 lb gorilla in the room and Hilary, although she has some individual good qualities, is riding on his coatails.
By the way, I am a white woman, age 66 and will be thrilled if Barack is president. Hilary cannot count her years as first Lady in Arkansas or Washington. Sorry, no matter how many years of experience she claims, it doesn't fly. She is too embedded with old politics.

Sent by Mary | 12:37 PM ET | 03-10-2008