So will any other Hillary supporters be voting for McCain?

[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.   

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.

Because it was the context he was using this in.  I think it is harder to understand if one is not a lawyer, but I'll try to give my best argument...  In most professions having a PhD and then becoming a researcher or something, means you are an expert on the topic and highly respected.  Becoming a Professor with a PhD is also prestigious but it's basically just another job you can do with a PhD. 

The legal profession is quite different.  Becoming a Law Professor, along with clerking for a Federal Judge or actually becoming a Judge, is pretty much the most prestigious thing you can do with a Law Degree.  In any given law school there is a huge distinction between Professor's and guest lecturers that teach 1 or 2 classes every now and then.  Usually full-fledged Professors are extremely well educated, clerked for Federal Judges if not for Supreme Court Justices and have written many Law Review articles on their specified area of interest.  Guess lecturers tend to just be local attorney's who have specialized in some area and can teach a pretty specific legal class.  They almost never teach 1st year law students and they usually don't write their own law school books.  There is a big difference. 

So with that said, he has used his "Professor" status in a context that has offended a lot of people because he's tried to make himself seem like the former Professor's mentioned when in fact he is more like the latter lecturers.  That's why I find him to be fake in this particular context.  Mostly because he acts as though he is the candidate of change, who is better than everyone else.

[Alcon]

Thank you for your answer.  Respectfully, I think all candidates think that they are "better than everyone else" in what they plan to deliver.  I think that the perception that one candidate feels himself or herself "superior" is mostly connected to a fundamental dislike of them.  I often feel that way about Clinton.  I don't think that's really fair.

I do want to look into this more though.  In the end, I don't think Obama has a particularly extensive pattern of disingenuous behavior.  I don't see how you can see this as a big deal but not something like Clinton's Serbia trip.  They seem, at best, in the same league.  I don't really remember a Presidential candidate who didn't have at least a few of these quirks and manipulations.

I do hope someone asks him about it, though.  It warrants a response.  It won't be the basis of my vote, but it doesn't make me think any better of Senator Obama.

[jokerman]

I will be voting for Obama.

[Lunar]

Everyone should remember that there are a lot of Democrats (especially in Red states) that vote in the Democratic primary but have NO intention of voting for the Democrat in November.

I think these people favor Hillary's more populist/traditionalist/white imagery over Obama's message of change.

Some of this might explain the large number of Hillary people who will "vote for Obama if their candidate doesn't win" in the exit polls?

[SomeLawStudent]

Thank you for your answer.  Respectfully, I think all candidates think that they are "better than everyone else" in what they plan to deliver.  I think that the perception that one candidate feels himself or herself "superior" is mostly connected to a fundamental dislike of them.  I often feel that way about Clinton.  I don't think that's really fair.

I do want to look into this more though.  In the end, I don't think Obama has a particularly extensive pattern of disingenuous behavior.  I don't see how you can see this as a big deal but not something like Clinton's Serbia trip.  They seem, at best, in the same league.  I don't really remember a Presidential candidate who didn't have at least a few of these quirks and manipulations.

I do hope someone asks him about it, though.  It warrants a response.  It won't be the basis of my vote, but it doesn't make me think any better of Senator Obama.

You're probably right.  I am a bit biased because I was a Hillary supporter and now I'm a McCain supporter.  But I think this irks me because as someone who just finished law school, I know how rigorous the character and fitness process is to pass the bar, and they specifically look into issues about lying about former employment.  I agree that Hillary lied about the Serbia trip though.  At the end of the day we're all going to just vote on the issues and our gut feeling of the candidates though.

[Beet]

Thank you for your answer.  Respectfully, I think all candidates think that they are "better than everyone else" in what they plan to deliver.  I think that the perception that one candidate feels himself or herself "superior" is mostly connected to a fundamental dislike of them.  I often feel that way about Clinton.  I don't think that's really fair.

I do want to look into this more though.  In the end, I don't think Obama has a particularly extensive pattern of disingenuous behavior.  I don't see how you can see this as a big deal but not something like Clinton's Serbia trip.  They seem, at best, in the same league.  I don't really remember a Presidential candidate who didn't have at least a few of these quirks and manipulations.

I do hope someone asks him about it, though.  It warrants a response.  It won't be the basis of my vote, but it doesn't make me think any better of Senator Obama.

You're probably right.  I am a bit biased because I was a Hillary supporter and now I'm a McCain supporter.  But I think this irks me because as someone who just finished law school, I know how rigorous the character and fitness process is to pass the bar, and they specifically look into issues about lying about former employment.  I agree that Hillary lied about the Serbia trip though.  At the end of the day we're all going to just vote on the issues and our gut feeling of the candidates though.

You did vote for Obama in February.

How can you vote for someone that would basically reward everything that Bush has done in the past 8 years, let alone the regressive direction of the country for the past generation? Who is against everything that both Hillary and Obama stand for? Has the primary turned you off that much? You do realize that if McCain had been in a primary like that you probably would have discovered all sorts of outrageous things you couldn't stand about him, right?

[emergingDmajority1]

here is a post I lifted from Obama Underground (formerly Democratic Underground) I feel it best expresses how the rest of us feel about Obama.

If this is too long to read, so be it. I said what I have to say. I don't care who disagrees.

If it wasn’t for Edwards, obama would already be back in Illinois holding routine town meetings. I would bet odds a hundred to one John is cursing the days he did all the dirty work on Hillary. It would have been him and Hillary now that we were left to decide between if John hadn’t strategized that he would attack Hillary in the early debates, and ignore obama.

The media played right along simultaneously and did nothing. Their usual standard of excellence. Instead of raking obama’s closets for the Wrights and exposing his arrogance to the bitter people of all the other states, prior to only finding it out before Pennsylvania, they kept him alive. Had Edwards slammed into obama, he would be nothing but at a memory along with the other also-rans.

Oufit obama in a ten gallon hat, cowboy boots, put him on the back of a covered wagon and you couldn’t tell him from one of the snake oil salesmen who peddled colored water touting it to cure everything from ulcers to baldness. I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could see him in an open field. Him and his arrogant ever present peppermint stick finger wagging as he preaches like the pastor he so now denounces after chumming up with him for twenty years. And even touting him early in his campaign. I have to laugh every time I think of it.

There is no doubt in my mind, both obamas sit in their hotel room at night after campaign rallies and brainstorm for Rosa Parks invoking slogans that will suck you all in so he can pause for the applause and adulation in his next contrived speech. Just like the phony he is. He’s a power crazy, self adoring, opportunist. And of course his wife has never been proud of America until now. Exactly.

He spends multi millions of dollars advertising around the clock on every channel he can buy time on, for an upcoming primary in a state he “knows” doesn’t count for anything towards delegates. Running them the entire week before the primary is held. Then claims he didn’t campaign. Bwha ha ha ha. Yes, by all means make him your choice for president. You definitely want a man who spends millions he got from you for something he says is irrelevant. That’s a definite winner.

He's never had an original thought in his political life. He rushed out a health care plan because Edwards was cleaning his clock over the issue, having one long before him. Then almost predictably was able to listen to Hillary’s answers first during most of their “debates.” Therefore he could conveniently spring board off of all her answers.

If they were ever to have a real debate where only the two were asking each other questions, she would screw him into the floor. His lack of knowledge would be so apparent, it would be embarrassing. If he was elected, he would literally be one of the only presidents--at least of my era, that would be dumber than anybody in his cabinet. The only other is the puss bag that’s in the office now. Saturday Night Live wasn’t satire. They were so dead on the money it wasn’t funny.

If he is ever on the stage with McCain where they will have strict time constraints, where you have a minute to two minutes to make your point, obama will be looking for a way to crawl off the stage on his hands and knees. He cannot stand to let anybody get the last word, or remotely criticize him. His ego is in the stratosphere. To present, he has had the luxury to ramble, “clarify” his last clarification, and talk for an additional five minutes after Hillary slammed him. All because the moderators were a joke. So were the debate “rules.” Those weren’t debates, those were string bean oratories. And the media stooges just let him bullsh**t on and on.

That won’t happen with the presidential debates. There will be time constraints. Obama is absolutely incapable of short, concise, intelligent summary statements because he talks in circles and makes up sh**t as he goes. Then he has to come back and pull litter over it. When McCain hits him with a zinger and he forcibly has to shut up because time is up, he will freak. You will see another bush fuming on the stool. How dare anyone question the great obama!

If he somehow wangles his way to the nomination, it will be a slaughter. The Harold Ford “swift boating” will be like comparing it to a vacation on the French Riviera. The sleaze the 527's will roll out for your heart throb will be unrivaled in political history. And when they get done with him, he will look like he was run over by a soccer team wearing golf spikes.

There aren’t enough Democrats in the United States to counter the number of republicans that will keep coming over the hill to vote for Grandpa McCain. The republican independents will also all come home to the safety of the terror touting ex prisoner of war. And if you haven’t heard, a HUGE number of Hillary supporters will never vote for string bean no matter what. Live in la la land all you want, the exit polls have given you those unequivocal facts. And I am one of those millions.

If the primaries were run on the model of the republican system with winner take all, Hillary would be waltzing to the nomination. He doesn’t win any of the state primaries, that almost always without fail, provide the crucial electoral college nail biting votes absolutely essential to win the election. He wins the states that the republicans will have another blow out, as sure as the sun comes up tomorrow. Or he wins the caucus states.  Problem is, there won't be any caucus on election day.

Blacks have primarily voted for him in the primaries for one reason. He’s a brother of the cloth. Like a Harley rider recognizes another Harley rider. I give great credit to that small percentage who break from that tempting opportunity to raise one of their own to the position of world’s most powerful human irrespective of the gravity of the wrong choice. And instead carefully analyze the credentials, coming to the conclusion that Hillary’s credentials trump that long awaited historic opportunity.

I would love to be able to know the exact true percentage of how many Blacks who have voted for him, could not name one bill that he voted for, or one that he didn’t. I bet the number would be astounding. The sad fact is, it wouldn’t matter if he didn’t know the address of the Capitol. He represents what they are and campaign workers are going door to door carrying purely that message. Here’s a flash, the republicans could care less. They never sought the Black vote and never expect to get it.

The other demographics that buy into his hope-a-dope, are the young and the upper middle class. And it is upper, to be certain. If a lot of you are earning over fifty thousand dollars a year, something is drastically wrong with the poverty level statistic. Does appeal to the upwardly more affluent remind you of anything? The people who have a nice standard of living flocking to a person’s campaign for election because they want to keep their nice standard of living? It starts with an r, and ends with ublican. Isn’t it funny that the low wage earner supports Clinton and those with money want the man who they think is going to be the best to further the interests of their investment accounts?

Then the overwhelming support of Senator Clinton by the elderly, and bearers of many years of life experiences with previous administrations. Those who struggled through the numerous bloody wars, through the almost mutual nuclear annihilation of the US and the Soviet Union-- were it not for a man of unparalleled bravery and judgment in crisis who turned the ships around and prevented World War III. Those who have a basis for evaluation, balancing a past against a future in an election, have rationalized only Senator Clinton wins their confidence.

This seasoned voter of life experience, chooses the woman who has been as close to being president without having the title as you can possibly be. Knowing, that having already acted for eight years in the official capacity as emissary to the world leaders and their wives–knowing them personally--is experience that cannot remotely be compared in a serious analysis with that of a trainee. If obama was faced with the decision of John F. Kennedy, he would have filled his knickers.

And the real irony is that at no time was I ever upside down obsessed with passion to see Hillary Clinton as our first choice for president either. The one person who would have taken this republic of ours and astonished the world with his leadership and integrity, chose to selfishly ignore America’s need and pursue his agenda of passion as a private citizen. Honorable and prolific as that goal may be, there is no greater way to influence the world to the cause of global warming than as president of the United States of America presiding at a G-8 summit.

He could have won the Democratic nomination and the election in a cake walk. The support on the internet would have been so great, it would have melted the tubes. He would have had influence over the entire world for his goals, while at the same time guiding our ship out of the troubled waters we’re going to be lucky to survive without him. But he chose private life over America imploring his need. I may never forgive him for that.

more here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5863583&mesg_id=5863583

 

[Beet]

here is a post I lifted from Obama Underground (formerly Democratic Underground) I feel it best expresses how the rest of us feel about Obama.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5863583&mesg_id=5863583

Thank you for not being around with your venom while Hillary actually had a chance, and thank you for posting today for the first time since October 18, 2004. That even beats SomeLawStudent's explosion of activity in the past couple days, compared to his usual 2-3 posts per month.

[Alcon]

more here:

And there, God willing, it will stay.

Thank you for not being around with your venom while Hillary actually had a chance, and thank you for posting today for the first time since October 18, 2004. That even beats SomeLawStudent's explosion of activity in the past couple days, compared to his usual 2-3 posts per month.

Why can't there be a dozen more of you or so around here?

[Smash255]

So instead of voting for the guy who has very similar views as the two people you support (Edwards & Clinton) you will instead go in the direction of someone who disagrees with Edwards and Clinton on virtually every single issue, who sold his maverick soul and made a real hard right turn in order to win the GOP nomination, who is running a campaign on basically continuing every single Bush policy...   How much sense does that make?

[SomeLawStudent]

Thank you for your answer.  Respectfully, I think all candidates think that they are "better than everyone else" in what they plan to deliver.  I think that the perception that one candidate feels himself or herself "superior" is mostly connected to a fundamental dislike of them.  I often feel that way about Clinton.  I don't think that's really fair.

I do want to look into this more though.  In the end, I don't think Obama has a particularly extensive pattern of disingenuous behavior.  I don't see how you can see this as a big deal but not something like Clinton's Serbia trip.  They seem, at best, in the same league.  I don't really remember a Presidential candidate who didn't have at least a few of these quirks and manipulations.

I do hope someone asks him about it, though.  It warrants a response.  It won't be the basis of my vote, but it doesn't make me think any better of Senator Obama.

You're probably right.  I am a bit biased because I was a Hillary supporter and now I'm a McCain supporter.  But I think this irks me because as someone who just finished law school, I know how rigorous the character and fitness process is to pass the bar, and they specifically look into issues about lying about former employment.  I agree that Hillary lied about the Serbia trip though.  At the end of the day we're all going to just vote on the issues and our gut feeling of the candidates though.

You did vote for Obama in February.

How can you vote for someone that would basically reward everything that Bush has done in the past 8 years, let alone the regressive direction of the country for the past generation? Who is against everything that both Hillary and Obama stand for? Has the primary turned you off that much? You do realize that if McCain had been in a primary like that you probably would have discovered all sorts of outrageous things you couldn't stand about him, right?

Yes, I realize the reason I am voting for McCain is partially because of a heated Democratic Primary.  But it's not like I didn't give Barack Obama a shot, which is more than I can say for many of his supporters - certain groups in particular - for Hillary.  The fact is though, that I've grown tired of Obama and speech after meaningless speech when he is just like every other fake politician.  At least Hillary Clinton doesn't pretend she's not a political fake to the extent Obama does.

I think you're also forgetting how heated the Republican Primary was between McCain and Romney.  I was really turned off from that too.  But mostly by Romney.  If it was Romney vs. Obama, I would begrudgingly pull the lever for Obama.  But McCain is a Republican I find completely acceptable. 

As for the Bush policies.  I don't really have the same interests as hardcore Democrats as I'm a registered Independent.  I never liked Bush, I voted for Nader in 2000 and then Kerry in 2004.  However, I don't like Obama either.  And it's not like I don't have my own policy reasons for being against Obama.  Obama will raise my taxes, which is a huge issue for me.  Obama considers my starting legal salary to be "rich" but I don't see it that way because I have $150,000 in law school debt to pay off and I'm likely not to stay in a big firm where I will keep that salary for terribly long.  So voting for Obama would increase my taxes to a level that would make paying back loans difficult, especially in a high cost of living city.  Hillary would have done this too, but not as badly as Obama.  McCain is a moderate on issues like the environment, campaign reform, etc.  So he is a better choice than Obama to me.  I don't think it's a complete turn.  Clinton was to the right of Obama to begin with.

[SomeLawStudent]

So instead of voting for the guy who has very similar views as the two people you support (Edwards & Clinton) you will instead go in the direction of someone who disagrees with Edwards and Clinton on virtually every single issue, who sold his maverick soul and made a real hard right turn in order to win the GOP nomination, who is running a campaign on basically continuing every single Bush policy...   How much sense does that make?

On the issues that matter to me, there is a substantive difference between Hillary and Obama.  Also John McCain is not a continuation of Bush.  He is more moderate than Bush, he works across party lines more than Bush, hell he even ran against George Bush.

[kevinatcausa]

Nicholas Kristof is Looking for comments from Clinton supporters who plan to support McCain in the general.  Some of you might want to respond there. 

On a different note...I'm an Obama supporter who was at one point considering voting for McCain over Clinton if she won the nomination.   McCain's comments on Supreme Court nominations this week at least temporarily shocked me back to my senses -- the Senator I crossed over to vote for in the 2000 primaries would never have made those statements. 

[zombones]

So there is a primary with candidates A and B.  They are both about 95% identical on issues.  Candidate B wins.  Supporters of A say "Well we're gonna vote for the opposing party's candidate, even if he is completely different from A and B!!"

Not gonna happen for the hugely vast majority of Candidate A supporters.

[SomeLawStudent]

So there is a primary with candidates A and B.  They are both about 95% identical on issues.  Candidate B wins.  Supporters of A say "Well we're gonna vote for the opposing party's candidate, even if he is completely different from A and B!!"

Not gonna happen for the hugely vast majority of Candidate A supporters.

Not sure what you base the "hugely vast majority" analysis on, when all the exit polls indicate that anywhere from 25-40% of her voters will defect to John McCain in November.

[zombones]

Not sure what you base the "hugely vast majority" analysis on, when all the exit polls indicate that anywhere from 25-40% of her voters will defect to John McCain in November.

Of course, I have no exact figure for how many Hill supporters will vote Obama in the General, but I think it will be a good, solid majority. 

And I don't blame any supporter of a candidate for being bitter that their candidate is losing/will lose/has already lost (however you want to look at it.), especially since they have most probably invested themselves very emotionally and financially,  but I am sure Hillary values the Dem party enough that she will at least try to mend some rifts and unify the party against their enemy in November. 

[exopolitician]

Not sure what you base the "hugely vast majority" analysis on, when all the exit polls indicate that anywhere from 25-40% of her voters will defect to John McCain in November.

Of course, I have no exact figure for how many Hill supporters will vote Obama in the General, but I think it will be a good, solid majority. 

And I don't blame any supporter of a candidate for being bitter that their candidate is losing/will lose/has already lost (however you want to look at it.), especially since they have most probably invested themselves very emotionally and financially,  but I am sure Hillary values the Dem party enough that she will at least try to mend some rifts and unify the party against their enemy in November. 

I hope your right.

[SomeLawStudent]

Not sure what you base the "hugely vast majority" analysis on, when all the exit polls indicate that anywhere from 25-40% of her voters will defect to John McCain in November.

Of course, I have no exact figure for how many Hill supporters will vote Obama in the General, but I think it will be a good, solid majority. 

And I don't blame any supporter of a candidate for being bitter that their candidate is losing/will lose/has already lost (however you want to look at it.), especially since they have most probably invested themselves very emotionally and financially,  but I am sure Hillary values the Dem party enough that she will at least try to mend some rifts and unify the party against their enemy in November. 

Why are they telling exit pollsters that as many as 40%++ of them will either stay home or defect then?  I also don't think she's going to help unite the party.  She thinks Obama will lose to McCain and she will probably try to wait til 2012 to run again.  That's why I don't think she will accept a VP spot.  She has already waited 8 years for this, what's 4 more.

[exopolitician]

Not sure what you base the "hugely vast majority" analysis on, when all the exit polls indicate that anywhere from 25-40% of her voters will defect to John McCain in November.

Of course, I have no exact figure for how many Hill supporters will vote Obama in the General, but I think it will be a good, solid majority. 

And I don't blame any supporter of a candidate for being bitter that their candidate is losing/will lose/has already lost (however you want to look at it.), especially since they have most probably invested themselves very emotionally and financially,  but I am sure Hillary values the Dem party enough that she will at least try to mend some rifts and unify the party against their enemy in November. 

Why are they telling exit pollsters that as many as 40%++ of them will either stay home or defect then?  I also don't think she's going to help unite the party.  She thinks Obama will lose to McCain and she will probably try to wait til 2012 to run again.  That's why I don't think she will accept a VP spot.  She has already waited 8 years for this, what's 4 more.

TBH....Exit Polls 6 months before the General Election during a verty dirty and competetive primary season doesnt usually mean much. Hopefully 6 months of working to unite the party is going to wield some results and im pretty sure [or just hoping...] some unity happens. Cause if it actually comes down to "half of clinton supporters would either stay home or vote McCain in the GE" come november....then all hope for the democratic party in the future is pretty much gone. Cause thats just obnoxiously sad...

[kevinatcausa]

In 2000, Exit polls showed one out of every five Republican primary voters in Virginia (including 46% of all McCain supporters) claiming they'd support Gore over Bush in the general election.

Similar numbers held in Connecticut, New York, Missouri, and probably other states as well.  

What's different this time around?

(Virginia was the first primary held where they asked this question...earlier primaries were held before Gore was confirmed as the nominee on the Democratic side.  The rest were taken from primaries the week after Virginia)

[SomeLawStudent]

In 2000, Exit polls showed one out of every five Republican primary voters in Virginia (including 46% of all McCain supporters) claiming they'd support Gore over Bush in the general election.

Similar numbers held in Connecticut, New York, Missouri, and probably other states as well. 

What's different this time around?

(Virginia was the first primary held where they asked this question...earlier primaries were held before Gore was confirmed as the nominee on the Democratic side.  The rest were taken from primaries the week after Virginia)

Connecticut and New York make perfect sense.  I voted for John McCain in the Connecticut primary against George Bush (Democratic race was basically decided), then went on to vote for Ralph Nader.  Not sure why so many claimed they would defect in VA or MO.  But in CT and NY a lot of Republicans DID vote against George Bush, that's why he lost those states so bad the first time he ran.

[Beet]

Thank you for your answer.  Respectfully, I think all candidates think that they are "better than everyone else" in what they plan to deliver.  I think that the perception that one candidate feels himself or herself "superior" is mostly connected to a fundamental dislike of them.  I often feel that way about Clinton.  I don't think that's really fair.

I do want to look into this more though.  In the end, I don't think Obama has a particularly extensive pattern of disingenuous behavior.  I don't see how you can see this as a big deal but not something like Clinton's Serbia trip.  They seem, at best, in the same league.  I don't really remember a Presidential candidate who didn't have at least a few of these quirks and manipulations.

I do hope someone asks him about it, though.  It warrants a response.  It won't be the basis of my vote, but it doesn't make me think any better of Senator Obama.

You're probably right.  I am a bit biased because I was a Hillary supporter and now I'm a McCain supporter.  But I think this irks me because as someone who just finished law school, I know how rigorous the character and fitness process is to pass the bar, and they specifically look into issues about lying about former employment.  I agree that Hillary lied about the Serbia trip though.  At the end of the day we're all going to just vote on the issues and our gut feeling of the candidates though.

You did vote for Obama in February.

How can you vote for someone that would basically reward everything that Bush has done in the past 8 years, let alone the regressive direction of the country for the past generation? Who is against everything that both Hillary and Obama stand for? Has the primary turned you off that much? You do realize that if McCain had been in a primary like that you probably would have discovered all sorts of outrageous things you couldn't stand about him, right?

Yes, I realize the reason I am voting for McCain is partially because of a heated Democratic Primary.  But it's not like I didn't give Barack Obama a shot, which is more than I can say for many of his supporters - certain groups in particular - for Hillary.  The fact is though, that I've grown tired of Obama and speech after meaningless speech when he is just like every other fake politician.  At least Hillary Clinton doesn't pretend she's not a political fake to the extent Obama does.

You can't judge a candidate by what some of his "supporters" may or may not do-- there are millions of people around and a candidate can't control his supporters. Two of the most painful Hillary gotchas where the media really went after her were Tuzla and Ferraro. Obama went out of his way to defend Hillary on both occasions. He criticized the media's focus on Ferraro during his Wright speech, saying it was a trivial issue. And in the Pennsylvania debate he said that Hillary had the right to make a mistake on Tuzla and we should focus on the important issues. That was very, very gracious and if you do not give him credit for it, too bad because he was being quite consistent in his personal desire to get past gotcha politics.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think the republican primary between McCain and romney, which lasted only a month, and McCain scoring all the important wins, was really that heated. If McCain was forced into a very tough non winner take all primary till now, I can bet that he would have done many things that pissed people off and made numerous gaffes; furthermore he would be perceived much further to the right than he is now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama's spending plans, starting with health care, are considerably lighter than Clinton's, so something doesn't add up there. Clinton was "to the right" of Obama about the same as Kansas City, Kansas is to the west of Kansas City Missouri. They agreed on 62 of 64 votes according to the National Journal. That doesn't mean Kansas City, Kansas residents should move to Beijing. And on economic issues, he's arguably to the right of her.

Finally, I don't think it takes a hardcore Dem to vote Dem because of Bush. Strange as it may seem I was briefly a republican myself in 2001, and it had nothing to do with 9/11. We have had 8 years of an ultra-divisive President who is far to the right of even his own historically polarized congressional caucus. Voting for another 82% conservative will do nothing to heal our divisions in the long run and will just vindicate Bush.

[SomeLawStudent]

Not sure what you base the "hugely vast majority" analysis on, when all the exit polls indicate that anywhere from 25-40% of her voters will defect to John McCain in November.

Of course, I have no exact figure for how many Hill supporters will vote Obama in the General, but I think it will be a good, solid majority. 

And I don't blame any supporter of a candidate for being bitter that their candidate is losing/will lose/has already lost (however you want to look at it.), especially since they have most probably invested themselves very emotionally and financially,  but I am sure Hillary values the Dem party enough that she will at least try to mend some rifts and unify the party against their enemy in November. 

Why are they telling exit pollsters that as many as 40%++ of them will either stay home or defect then?  I also don't think she's going to help unite the party.  She thinks Obama will lose to McCain and she will probably try to wait til 2012 to run again.  That's why I don't think she will accept a VP spot.  She has already waited 8 years for this, what's 4 more.

TBH....Exit Polls 6 months before the General Election during a verty dirty and competetive primary season doesnt usually mean much. Hopefully 6 months of working to unite the party is going to wield some results and im pretty sure [or just hoping...] some unity happens. Cause if it actually comes down to "half of clinton supporters would either stay home or vote McCain in the GE" come november....then all hope for the democratic party in the future is pretty much gone. Cause thats just obnoxiously sad...

It doesn't mean all hope for the democratic party is gone.  How is that the case?  Most of these people will probably still vote for Democrats down the ticket.  I live in a swing district and I plan to vote for Democrats for every office but President.  They will probably increase their majority in the House and Senate.  Which will make it hard for McCain to push through extremist Judges.

In fact, Democrats should benefit because Obama will increase liberal turnout and even though he'll probably lose moderate voters, most moderates will not vote for Republicans down the ticket, we have no incentive to.

[zombones]

In 2000, there was no Iraq War, there was no record debt/deficit, there was no subprime crisis, gas was not 4$/gal, and the economy was not in as bad a shape as it is today.  (The dotcom-burst is definitely weaker than the subprime burst)

These issues will be too overwhelming for a Dem to vote for McCain out of bitterness.

Unless they think McCain is better on those issues than Obama, who is virtually identical, policy-wise, to Clinton.  In fact, one of the big things they differ on is Healthcare, where Clinton mandates everyone, whereas Obama mandates children.  McCain is not pushing for UHC.  Clinton supporters will be swayed to Obama between now and Nov 4. 

[SomeLawStudent]

Thank you for your answer.  Respectfully, I think all candidates think that they are "better than everyone else" in what they plan to deliver.  I think that the perception that one candidate feels himself or herself "superior" is mostly connected to a fundamental dislike of them.  I often feel that way about Clinton.  I don't think that's really fair.

I do want to look into this more though.  In the end, I don't think Obama has a particularly extensive pattern of disingenuous behavior.  I don't see how you can see this as a big deal but not something like Clinton's Serbia trip.  They seem, at best, in the same league.  I don't really remember a Presidential candidate who didn't have at least a few of these quirks and manipulations.

I do hope someone asks him about it, though.  It warrants a response.  It won't be the basis of my vote, but it doesn't make me think any better of Senator Obama.

You're probably right.  I am a bit biased because I was a Hillary supporter and now I'm a McCain supporter.  But I think this irks me because as someone who just finished law school, I know how rigorous the character and fitness process is to pass the bar, and they specifically look into issues about lying about former employment.  I agree that Hillary lied about the Serbia trip though.  At the end of the day we're all going to just vote on the issues and our gut feeling of the candidates though.

You did vote for Obama in February.

How can you vote for someone that would basically reward everything that Bush has done in the past 8 years, let alone the regressive direction of the country for the past generation? Who is against everything that both Hillary and Obama stand for? Has the primary turned you off that much? You do realize that if McCain had been in a primary like that you probably would have discovered all sorts of outrageous things you couldn't stand about him, right?

Yes, I realize the reason I am voting for McCain is partially because of a heated Democratic Primary.  But it's not like I didn't give Barack Obama a shot, which is more than I can say for many of his supporters - certain groups in particular - for Hillary.  The fact is though, that I've grown tired of Obama and speech after meaningless speech when he is just like every other fake politician.  At least Hillary Clinton doesn't pretend she's not a political fake to the extent Obama does.

You can't judge a candidate by what some of his "supporters" may or may not do-- there are millions of people around and a candidate can't control his supporters. Two of the most painful Hillary gotchas where the media really went after her were Tuzla and Ferraro. Obama went out of his way to defend Hillary on both occasions. He criticized the media's focus on Ferraro during his Wright speech, saying it was a trivial issue. And in the Pennsylvania debate he said that Hillary had the right to make a mistake on Tuzla and we should focus on the important issues. That was very, very gracious and if you do not give him credit for it, too bad because he was being quite consistent in his personal desire to get past gotcha politics.

Obama may not be the perfect pol but he does aspire to a higher place than Clinton has, and that message is resonating. At least he reaches, and he has really run, all things considered, a more restrained campaign than her, even if his supporters have not. Obama's message is going to be the same no matter how many times you hear it; the point isn't to ooh because you think it's novel, the point is that it's the right message, and he'll keep repeating it not to entertain you but because that is what he has buit his campaign around. If you were only attracted to him because he was novel and new and saying things that you woud get tired of in a month, that is unfortunate but I hope you would reconsider.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think the republican primary between McCain and romney, which lasted only a month, and McCain scoring all the important wins, was really that heated. If McCain was forced into a very tough non winner take all primary till now, I can bet that he would have done many things that pissed people off and made numerous gaffes; furthermore he would be perceived much further to the right than he is now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama's spending plans, starting with health care, are considerably lighter than Clinton's, so something doesn't add up there. Clinton was "to the right" of Obama about the same as Kansas City, Kansas is to the west of Kansas City Missouri. They agreed on 62 of 64 votes according to the National Journal. That doesn't mean Kansas City, Kansas residents should move to Beijing. And on economic issues, he's arguably to the right of her.

Finally, I don't think it takes a hardcore Dem to vote Dem because of Bush. Strange as it may seem I was briefly a republican myself in 2001, and it had nothing to do with 9/11. We have had 8 years of an ultra-divisive President who is far to the right of even his own historically polarized congressional caucus. Voting for another 82% conservative will do nothing to heal our divisions in the long run and will just vindicate Bush.

This was too long to break up so I'll just address the main points below:

1) I don't generally hold a candidate's supporters against him/her, but in this case I'm especially turned off.  Particularly people who call me a racist for not voting for Obama.  It's actually given me a new found respect for Republicans who are constantly called Racist.  I actually now can empathize with them more. 

2) I remember the Republican campaign being pretty heated.  Basically McCain called Romney an empty suit and Romney spent millions of dollars on attack ads.

3) I don't think a McCain Presidency will be a vindication of Bush.  I mean, the man ran against Bush.  If anything, the fact that Republican's couldn't even nominate a conservative within their own party is indicative of how bad the Bush Brand is now.  And yeah, the ratings say McCain is pretty conservative, but he's perceived as a Maverick and all the conservatives I know don't like him, so clearly the hardcore Bush voters couldn't get their candidate (Romney) through.

4) Well Obama had made it clear that he wanted to raise taxes on people making above $150,000 a year.  I think he's flip-flopped on that now, but I don't really think that's fair to people who have massive student loan debt even if he does raise it closer to 200K.  He of all people should know that, being a lawyer who worked for a Big Law Firm and had a lot of student debt that he just paid off.