So will any other Hillary supporters be voting for McCain?

[SomeLawStudent]

Or are you guys still holding out for her to win the nomination somehow?

[MODU]

Well, your question/comment aren't coupled properly.  By asking if Killary supporters voting for McCain, you are implying that she has already won the nomination.  If you are talking about the general election, I find it hard to see Killary supporters (who backed her through the primaries) to abandon her in favor of McCain in November.  That's like backing your team all the way to the Superbowl, just to cheer for the other side.

[True Democrat]

I support/supported her in the primaries.  But I would vote for McCain regardless of whether she is the Democratic nominee.

[emergingDmajority1]

Count 3 from my family. My mother, father, and myself. All supporters of Hillary, all voted for her in the primary...all will jump ship to McCain without even a second thought.

[Reluctant Republican]

Not a Hillary supporter, though I was Unlike most Republicans legitimately quite favorable to her and would have been happy with her as president. But I’m curious why you Hillary supporters would not support Obama, given that there do not seem to be many policy differences between them. If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about Obama that rubs you the wrong way?

[Inmate Trump]

Not a Hillary supporter, though I was Unlike most Republicans legitimately quite favorable to her and would have been happy with her as president. But I’m curious why you Hillary supporters would not support Obama, given that there do not seem to be many policy differences between them. If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about Obama that rubs you the wrong way?

Policy differences aside, I cannot place my support behind someone who claims he'll bring about change, yet has no actual history of doing so.  I don't trust him, mainly because I have no reason to.  He hasn't done anything at all in his short time in the public eye that qualifies him to lead our nation.  I cannot stand the fact that he's been given a basically free ride by the media up until about 2 weeks ago--and even then it's not really been all that harsh whereas were the roles reversed between him and Hillary, we all know the media would've been a LOT harsher.

Although my state went heavily for Obama, my family and I voted for Hillary (she won my county, btw, by a pretty good margin).  While not all in my family will vote for McCain (some will just stay home, while others will go for Obama), I myself am fully behind McCain and will vote for him in November.

[bgwah]

Uh oh, whiny thread.

But it's okay, I'd probably be bitching about how I'd be voting Green if it were the other way around... Although, maybe not... If she won without the fake election in Michigan and without the super delegates overturning the pledged delegates, I might have voted for her in the general... Maybe...

[Hash]

I can't wait until the Clinton supporter-McCain voters whine about McCain if he's elected.

[7,052,770]

absolutely not.  I'm all for 0bama.

[WalterMitty]

it is certainly possible that ill vote mccain in november.  im still undecided.

[Хahar 🤔]

absolutely not.  I'm all for 0bama.

Who is this zero-bama?

[SomeLawStudent]

Not a Hillary supporter, though I was Unlike most Republicans legitimately quite favorable to her and would have been happy with her as president. But I’m curious why you Hillary supporters would not support Obama, given that there do not seem to be many policy differences between them. If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about Obama that rubs you the wrong way?

I just have a big personal dislike for Obama.   He seems extremely fake.  I made a comment about how his rallies placed lots of white people behind him in another thread and basically everyone here said that was OK because it's typical political posturing.  Fine, but I thought he was the candidate of change and all that.  He just seems to be an empty suit that gives good speeches and makes unrealistic claims, like that he was a law professor for instance.

[Beet]

Not a Hillary supporter, though I was Unlike most Republicans legitimately quite favorable to her and would have been happy with her as president. But I’m curious why you Hillary supporters would not support Obama, given that there do not seem to be many policy differences between them. If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about Obama that rubs you the wrong way?

I just have a big personal dislike for Obama.   He seems extremely fake.  I made a comment about how his rallies placed lots of white people behind him in another thread and basically everyone here said that was OK because it's typical political posturing.  Fine, but I thought he was the candidate of change and all that.  He just seems to be an empty suit that gives good speeches and makes unrealistic claims, like that he was a law professor for instance.

The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors).

Perhaps nothing has astonished me this primary season as the number of politics watchers who have somehow developed an ignorance about political campaigns and hold their candidates up to extra-politically high standards. It's a jungle out there. I defended Hillary when the Obama people were trying to hold her to a ridiculously high ethical standard, even though she also could have run a much cleaner campaign. But this is absurd. To complain about the fact that the campaign is conscious of the people standing behind the candidate when they give a speech? This is one of the most rote and mundane things that every candidate has done for decades.

I don't think being "the candidate of change" requires one to be so extreme that one fails to take basic campaign precautions. That kind of idealism is responsible for long-haired hippies who drop out of society to remain pure but end up accomplishing very little.

[SomeLawStudent]

Not a Hillary supporter, though I was Unlike most Republicans legitimately quite favorable to her and would have been happy with her as president. But I’m curious why you Hillary supporters would not support Obama, given that there do not seem to be many policy differences between them. If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about Obama that rubs you the wrong way?

I just have a big personal dislike for Obama.   He seems extremely fake.  I made a comment about how his rallies placed lots of white people behind him in another thread and basically everyone here said that was OK because it's typical political posturing.  Fine, but I thought he was the candidate of change and all that.  He just seems to be an empty suit that gives good speeches and makes unrealistic claims, like that he was a law professor for instance.

The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors).

Perhaps nothing has astonished me this primary season as the number of politics watchers who have somehow developed an ignorance about political campaigns and hold their candidates up to extra-politically high standards. It's a jungle out there. I defended Hillary when the Obama people were trying to hold her to a ridiculously high ethical standard, even though she also could have run a much cleaner campaign. But this is absurd. To complain about the fact that the campaign is conscious of the people standing behind the candidate when they give a speech? This is one of the most rote and mundane things that every candidate has done for decades.

I don't think being "the candidate of change" requires one to be so extreme that one fails to take basic campaign precautions. That kind of idealism is responsible for long-haired hippies who drop out of society to remain pure but end up accomplishing very little.

Most of the Obama movement is comprised of "long-haired hippies who drop out of society to remain pure but end up accomplishing very little."  I don't think putting 1,000 white people behind u when ur speaking to an audience of 20,000 that is about 80% black is a rote and mundane thing.  Sorry.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't care who the Hillaryis44 people vote for.

[SomeLawStudent]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined. Of course it is sort of weird how you can become a law professor without a doctorate.

[SomeLawStudent]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

[Flying Dog]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

Ughhh....more stupid "Gotcha" politics.

[SomeLawStudent]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

Ughhh....more stupid "Gotcha" politics.

More like the "candidate of change" lying when he should know better.

[Flying Dog]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

Ughhh....more stupid "Gotcha" politics.

More like the "candidate of change" lying when he should know better.

Oh yea. He should take a page out of Clinton's book and call it sleep deprivation.

[Alcon]

It's common for lecturers to refer to themselves as "professors" because that's what the kids call them.

Do you really think this is an intentional lie?  I know you don't like the man, but...if this were Clinton, I'd be saying the exact same thing.

[SomeLawStudent]

It's common for lecturers to refer to themselves as "professors" because that's what the kids call them.

Do you really think this is an intentional lie?  I know you don't like the man, but...if this were Clinton, I'd be saying the exact same thing.

Yes I do.  Look at the article I referenced, he clearly tried to use his "status" as a Constitutional Law Professor to score points in a legal argument he was making.  Every barred attorney has to pass a Character and Fitness Exam when they take a bar in any state.  It is very extensive and bar committee's look for any contradictions or mistatements in potential Attorney's resume's or law school applications.  For instance, if you lied about a job title when applying to law school then that could be used against you in denying you admission to a state bar.  Obama, who has passed the bar in IL presumably (which has one of the most extensive bar exams behind CA, NY, VA) should know this and should cover his basis more.  If it was just a little slip up it would be one thing, but he was clearly flat out lying about his legal background to sound more well versed on a Constitutional Laww Issue than George Bush.  If for instance, he wrote on his law school application that he was a College Professor when he was not, I guarantee you that is something that would be highly scrutinized by Bar Examiners and anyone else in the Legal Profession.   

[SomeLawStudent]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

Ughhh....more stupid "Gotcha" politics.

More like the "candidate of change" lying when he should know better.

Oh yea. He should take a page out of Clinton's book and call it sleep deprivation.

Yeah of course, Hillary Clinton should be highly scrutinized for lying, but Barack Obama, who holds himself up on a pedestal as the candidate of change should be given a free pass when he lies outright.  *votes for McCain*

[Alcon]

It's common for lecturers to refer to themselves as "professors" because that's what the kids call them.

Do you really think this is an intentional lie?  I know you don't like the man, but...if this were Clinton, I'd be saying the exact same thing.

Yes I do.  Look at the article I referenced, he clearly tried to use his "status" as a Constitutional Law Professor to score points in a legal argument he was making.  Every barred attorney has to pass a Character and Fitness Exam when they take a bar in any state.  It is very extensive and bar committee's look for any contradictions or mistatements in potential Attorney's resume's or law school applications.  For instance, if you lied about a job title when applying to law school then that could be used against you in denying you admission to a state bar.  Obama, who has passed the bar in IL presumably (which has one of the most extensive bar exams behind CA, NY, VA) should know this and should cover his basis more.  If it was just a little slip up it would be one thing, but he was clearly flat out lying about his legal background to sound more well versed on a Constitutional Laww Issue than George Bush.  If for instance, he wrote on his law school application that he was a College Professor when he was not, I guarantee you that is something that would be highly scrutinized by Bar Examiners and anyone else in the Legal Profession.   

Why are you so convinced that he was using it formally instead of colloquially, and attempting to lie instead of just offhandedly using a term that most Americans think are interchangeable?

You don't need to convince me that intentionally lying about such a matter would be wrong...of course it would be.

I'm just kind of saying, coming from someone who likes both McCain and Obama personally, and is pretty familiar with this whole full professor/lecturer thing, this seems like the sort of thing that I'd use to unreasonably justify disliking someone I already dislike.