The latest polls are in: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are now tied in New Hampshire. 32% of Democratic NH voters say they support Clinton, the same amount say they support Obama. This means that the first two primaries will be incredibly close and exciting.

For all the talk about an upcoming ‘coronation’ of Clinton, she’s having quite a hard time. She had a major lead, much like Rudy Giuliani, but Obama has come closer and closer. At this moment, he’s got a real shot at winning the Democratic nomination.

In short: there will be no coronation. Clinton has to fight for it. And then some.

So why are people supporting Obama? Well, one of the reasons: “Obama is seen as most likely to share voters’ values and be willing to stand up for what he believes.”

Excuse me? Are they talking about the man who votes ‘present’ as if it actually means something? Are they talking about the man who talks the talk but who quickly leaves the Senate floor at a moment a controversial vote comes up?

Stand up for what believes? Yeah, outside the Senate perhaps.

It never ceases to amaze how someone who talks, and talks, and talks… and talks can convince people that he stands up for what he believes, all the while he’s trying to dodge controversial votes as much as he possibly can.

If I were American I would definitely vote Republican if Obama wins the Democratic nomination. He doesn’t have the experience (and yes, he’ll be slapped around because of it in the campaign for the national elections); he’s soft on foreign policy (and yes, he’ll get slapped around because of it in the campaign for the national elections); he tries to dodge controversial votes as if it’s some kind of hobby (and yes, he’ll get slapped around because of it in the campaign for the national elections); he’s a horrible debater (and yes, he’ll lose virtually all debates in the campaign for the national elections); he wants to talk to Iran, but threatens Pakistan with military strikes (and yes, he’ll get slapped around because of it in the campaign for the national elections); he argues that he’ll be good at foreign policy because he lived abroad as a child (and yes, they’ll make fun of him because of it in the campaign for the national elections); he used drugs (yes, it will be held against him in the national elections); did I mention he’s inexperienced?

The hilarious thing is that Obama is comparing himself to Bill Clinton: absolutely ludicrous. Clinton too was accused of not being experienced, Obama argues.

Yeah, right. He was accused of it and compared to George H.W. Bush he, indeed, didn’t have a lot of experience. But objectively speaking he did have experience. He had been a Governor of Arkansas for several terms. Before that he was Arkansas’ Attorney General.

In short: this man actually had experience on quite a high level.

Compare that to Obama: he did some charity work for some organization or another, and he served in a state senate for a while. After he served one year in the US Senate he started to run for president. In other words, he has never governed anyone, he hadn’t operated on a national level until a couple of years ago.

He isn’t just inexperienced, he’s the very definition of the word.

He’s a good VP candidate - he could become the president of the most powerful country 8 years from now, or even four. But not now.

If he can, so can humpty dumpty (our guest blogger).