If you wanted Hillary and now back McCain

[dante3000]

The reason that people who voted for Hillary would vote for McCain is that he's been running a one man show. He's been the chosen one for months while Obama and Clinton battled it out. He's stayed out of it while those two traded shots with each other (making them both look worse).

You think if Clinton won, McCain wouldn't take all the cheap shots on earth at Clinton? He'd distance himself as far as possible from her and her strategies, just to win over the far right. It makes sense that you might not vote along party lines but their campaigns and strategies are vastly different and to vote for the other simply because your candidate didn't get the nomination is foolish.

On a side note, McCain's voting record is something around 95% in keeping with the Bush presidency, more so than any other Senator. So a vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of the exact same presidency.

[sgoodcore]

I agree with this. But who is to say that one person can't have a legitimate reason to vote for either? Maybe they like Hillary's view on health care, but McCain's war strategy and their vote was hinging on those issues. Now that Hillary is gone, her healthcare platform is out the window, so you go with what you like about McCain. Why is that so hard to see?

Her health care and Obama's health care packages are so close to each other that this argument doesn't really hold up. Don't get me wrong their are differences between Hillary and Barry, but the health care one is barely a difference.

I think most would agree Clinton and McCain are at completely different ends of the political spectrum. I don't think there's enough common ground to believe, for the most part, people could choose one or the other interchangeably.

[hickey]

I agree with this. But who is to say that one person can't have a legitimate reason to vote for either? Maybe they like Hillary's view on health care, but McCain's war strategy and their vote was hinging on those issues. Now that Hillary is gone, her healthcare platform is out the window, so you go with what you like about McCain. Why is that so hard to see?

Her health care and Obama's health care packages are so close to each other that this argument doesn't really hold up. Don't get me wrong their are differences between Hillary and Barry, but the health care one is barely a difference.

I was throwing that out as an example, not as fact.

[lokithelion]

Her health care and Obama's health care packages are so close to each other that this argument doesn't really hold up. Don't get me wrong their are differences between Hillary and Barry, but the health care one is barely a difference.

I was throwing that out as an example, not as fact.

Got it. You'd be surprised how many people I've met you actually believe there was a massive difference.

[sherlock]

you'd be suprised how many people still think mccain is a maverick and obama is a muslim.

[mcm1610]

Outside of political stances, how could you vote for McCain anyway? The guy is dying before the country's eyes. They showed him walking through the rose gardens with Bush and down some steps, he had to take each step like an infant would. There's no way the guy can possibly multitask, which means he'll be relying way too heavily on unelected appointees in his cabinet or aides or whatever. Plus, do we need someone who is so engrained in Washington's goings-on?

The biggest plus for Obama in my eyes is that he's only spent 2 years in Washington... hopefully not enough time to get roped into the shitty system that has become our bogged down government.

[flood]

was wondering how the democrats were going to fuck up this election. they're doing better every week at it.... sigh.

[mcm1610]

Also, regarding the switching sides thing:

It is possible to be conservative regarding some issues and liberal regarding others. To be honest, I'm not registered to a party so I never pay attention to primaries so I don't know the drastic differences between Obama and Hillary, but say they had differing stances on a key issue I had in mind, I would pick one or the other. Say that's my biggest interest in the election, and I agreed with candidate A for not much more than that issue, and candidate B (of the same party) not so much on anything. Then there's candidate C of the other party, who I wouldn't vote for originally because I don't agree with his stance on my big issue, but maybe some smaller issues I do agree with him and he's different than the other two. If B wins the primary, I'd vote for C because at least I agree with SOMETHING about him.

So to say you're an asshole for switching sides.. you don't know everyone's personal reasons.

[sherlock]

Outside of political stances, how could you vote for McCain anyway? The guy is dying before the country's eyes. They showed him walking through the rose gardens with Bush and down some steps, he had to take each step like an infant would. There's no way the guy can possibly multitask, which means he'll be relying way too heavily on unelected appointees in his cabinet or aides or whatever. Plus, do we need someone who is so engrained in Washington's goings-on?

The biggest plus for Obama in my eyes is that he's only spent 2 years in Washington... hopefully not enough time to get roped into the shitty system that has become our bogged down government.

that's exactly what i was thinking. but it turns out hes getting just as much money from the wrong kinds of corporations as the rest of them. i just seem to trust him a little more.

[mclz]

I was reading about McCain over the weekend and learned something that I didn't know before. I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge, so excuse me for being out of the loop. Whenever he came back from being a POW he found out his wife had been in a car crash and she was not the same good looking woman he remembered. So he dumped her for some broad 17 years younger. What a douche.

to be fair, 17 years younger and fucking looooooooaded.

haha i have that animated gif on your avatar on my laptop, i love that picture

oh and yeah and voting is stupid

[mattramone]

It's been interesting reading the articles about the age divide among avowed feminists. (Of which I consider myself one.) It's seemed like the old guard has been more concerned about getting a woman elected President more than who would be the best candidate. That's fucked up.

No matter if you think Obama stole the election from your gal, the obvious truth is that McCain is going to appoint Supreme Court judges who're going to act regressive on all the issues women have worked so hard for since the dawn of the suffragettes. Yeah, I know you're not happy, but voting for Obama HAS to seem less odious to true feminists than voting for a guy who will do whatever he can to roll back reproductive rights.

[kurtz]

Also, regarding the switching sides thing:

It is possible to be conservative regarding some issues and liberal regarding others. To be honest, I'm not registered to a party so I never pay attention to primaries so I don't know the drastic differences between Obama and Hillary, but say they had differing stances on a key issue I had in mind, I would pick one or the other. Say that's my biggest interest in the election, and I agreed with candidate A for not much more than that issue, and candidate B (of the same party) not so much on anything. Then there's candidate C of the other party, who I wouldn't vote for originally because I don't agree with his stance on my big issue, but maybe some smaller issues I do agree with him and he's different than the other two. If B wins the primary, I'd vote for C because at least I agree with SOMETHING about him.

So to say you're an asshole for switching sides.. you don't know everyone's personal reasons.

I agree with this.

I think you are more of an asshole if you just vote strictly democrat or strictly republican. That is all alot of voters look at. I vote for people and issues. Not political parties.

[lokithelion]

Outside of political stances, how could you vote for McCain anyway? The guy is dying before the country's eyes. They showed him walking through the rose gardens with Bush and down some steps, he had to take each step like an infant would. There's no way the guy can possibly multitask, which means he'll be relying way too heavily on unelected appointees in his cabinet or aides or whatever. Plus, do we need someone who is so engrained in Washington's goings-on?

The biggest plus for Obama in my eyes is that he's only spent 2 years in Washington... hopefully not enough time to get roped into the shitty system that has become our bogged down government.

that's exactly what i was thinking. but it turns out hes getting just as much money from the wrong kinds of corporations as the rest of them. i just seem to trust him a little more.

actually 90% of Obama's money is from people like myself or my grandmother who give 20 dollars at a time. Thats why he always had tons of money and Hillary ran out. Almost all of her doners gave all they could legally and were then tapped out.

[sgoodcore]

Also, regarding the switching sides thing:

It is possible to be conservative regarding some issues and liberal regarding others. To be honest, I'm not registered to a party so I never pay attention to primaries so I don't know the drastic differences between Obama and Hillary, but say they had differing stances on a key issue I had in mind, I would pick one or the other. Say that's my biggest interest in the election, and I agreed with candidate A for not much more than that issue, and candidate B (of the same party) not so much on anything. Then there's candidate C of the other party, who I wouldn't vote for originally because I don't agree with his stance on my big issue, but maybe some smaller issues I do agree with him and he's different than the other two. If B wins the primary, I'd vote for C because at least I agree with SOMETHING about him.

So to say you're an asshole for switching sides.. you don't know everyone's personal reasons.

Well its not a political party thing. You can vote democratic and then republican, no problem. My problem with the hold thing is this specific instance. McCain and Clinton have relatively nothing in common, they are not even closely to politically aligned especially since McCain has been attempting to be more conservative. Further, Obama and Clinton aren't that different. That's why there's so much turmoil. They are alike enough and engender such vehement support that saying Clinton supporters would be more aligned with McCain than Obama is ludicrous. Therefore, switching in this specific instance is done for spite because Hillary didn't win. McCain and Clinton don't agree on big issues at all. Maybe small ones but doubtful there as well.

[jawbroken]

how come nobody has brought up the inevitable for october?

terrorist attack on US soil followed by dubya suspending the election, and declaring martial law and himself president for life

oh, its coming

[Guest baseball]

@ original post:

This shouldn't be surprising. Most people care more about having a candidate they can go 'ra-ra' over, rather than their actual policies or histories. When their candidate gets knocked out they become petty and lame.

That's what happens when the media treats an election like a sporting event. Hillary supporters are bitter because they can't tune in to CNN and see their candidate participate in the MAIN EVENT on CNN's ELECTION BOWL '08!!! AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!!

You also shouldn't type democrat/progressive. That's an insult to progressives.

[Guest baseball]

that's exactly what i was thinking. but it turns out hes getting just as much money from the wrong kinds of corporations as the rest of them. i just seem to trust him a little more.

actually 90% of Obama's money is from people like myself or my grandmother who give 20 dollars at a time. Thats why he always had tons of money and Hillary ran out. Almost all of her doners gave all they could legally and were then tapped out.

Aside from the fact that I seriously doubt he gets 90% of his money from individuals, the individuals will never have the influence that special interests and corporations do.

And it's started already. Obama, in agreeance with GW Bush, recently vowed his support to up the US' contributions to Plan Mexico. I think the number was $1.4 billion. If you haven't been following, the Mexico situation is so grim it makes the War in Iraq look like a success.

This is how politics works. The War in Iraq (which Obama voted for no?) is no longer popular, so what do politicians do? They find other places to shift the special interests who contribute to them. You mine as well just hand the money right over to the US defense contractors now. Ahh, the beauty of the military industrial complex. It's a shame it will be at the expense of the Mexican people. One of Obama's, like so many other policiticans, highest campaign contributors has ties to defense contractors.

Change, my ass. Don't kid yourself.

[sgoodcore]

Actually I'm pretty sure Obama voted against the war in Iraq. (As dante so kindly pointed out, Obama wasn't a senator at the time. Doh!)

And what do you expect as far as change goes? Change is a grass roots thing, the main principle of being a progressive is the belief in that. Change will come from the bottom on up to the top and will take a long time to happen. Do you think you're going to move an entire DC polictical monster a mile a minute? I'll take a step at a time until things get back to where they need to be.

[dante3000]

Uhm...Not to be a dick but Obama wasn't elected a senator until 2004 (long after the war)and part of his 2004 campaign was that he held a stance against the Iraq war before it started.

Kind of like, being the first person who liked a band.

[sgoodcore]

Uhm...Not to be a dick but Obama wasn't elected a senator until 2004 (long after the war)and part of his 2004 campaign was that he held a stance against the Iraq war before it started.

Kind of like, being the first person who liked a band.

Dick. Maybe the talk was about Obama being against the war from the get-go? I dunno, I guess I was sort of for the War to be honest. It would be great if someone had more forethought than the majority of the country but I think bad intelligence can get you to do anything.

[Guest baseball]

Actually I'm pretty sure Obama voted against the war in Iraq. And what do you expect as far as change goes? Change is a grass roots thing, the main principle of being a progressive is the belief in that. Change will come from the bottom on up to the top and will take a long time to happen. Do you think you're going to move an entire DC polictical monster a mile a minute? I'll take a step at a time until things get back to where they need to be.

I thought he was on the 'for' side way back when? I know everyone changed their minds later.

I know change doesn't happen overnight, that's not what I meant. I was just commenting about his campaign slogan emphasizing 'change'.

My point is, don't forget he's a politician. He's going to pull the same stuff that GW or Clinton or any one of them pull. He's not our savior. He might be better, he might not be, it's hard to say at this point and time will tell. Just saying, don't get too caught up in the charismatic and progressive package he's peddling. There's not a lot of evidence to support his 'progressiveness' in his history and voting records.

[Guest baseball]

Yeah, I didn't mean the original pre-2004 vote. Wasn't there some funding bills at one point or something though? I must have been wrong about his support then. I don't follow election campaigns closely.

In my defense, I did type it with a question mark .

[lokithelion]

actually 90% of Obama's money is from people like myself or my grandmother who give 20 dollars at a time. Thats why he always had tons of money and Hillary ran out. Almost all of her doners gave all they could legally and were then tapped out.

Aside from the fact that I seriously doubt he gets 90% of his money from individuals, the individuals will never have the influence that special interests and corporations do.

And it's started already. Obama, in agreeance with GW Bush, recently vowed his support to up the US' contributions to Plan Mexico. I think the number was $1.4 billion. If you haven't been following, the Mexico situation is so grim it makes the War in Iraq look like a success.

This is how politics works. The War in Iraq (which Obama voted for no?) is no longer popular, so what do politicians do? They find other places to shift the special interests who contribute to them. You mine as well just hand the money right over to the US defense contractors now. Ahh, the beauty of the military industrial complex. It's a shame it will be at the expense of the Mexican people. One of Obama's, like so many other policiticans, highest campaign contributors has ties to defense contractors.

Change, my ass. Don't kid yourself.

"And it's started already. Obama, in agreeance with GW Bush, recently vowed his support to up the US' contributions to Plan Mexico. I think the number was $1.4 billion. If you haven't been following, the Mexico situation is so grim it makes the War in Iraq look like a success."

This comment is mind blowingly ignorant. 1.4 billion? Thats a fraction of what we spend in Iraq in a week. Iraq has almost single handedly destroyed the dollar because we're funding the war on borrowed money, let alone the fact that Americans are dying in Iraq. Plan Mexico is small potatoes in the long run.

"This is how politics works. The War in Iraq (which Obama voted for no?) is no longer popular, so what do politicians do? They find other places to shift the special interests who contribute to them. You mine as well just hand the money right over to the US defense contractors now. Ahh, the beauty of the military industrial complex. It's a shame it will be at the expense of the Mexican people. One of Obama's, like so many other policiticans, highest campaign contributors has ties to defense contractors.

Change, my ass. Don't kid yourself."

What you've just said is "Although I don't have the facts, I'll make a bunch of assumptions." One of Obama's biggest SINGLE contributers is a defense firm. And you know what? That contributer is limited to what they can give, and they gave the same amount to McCain and Clinton. You know why? Because they want to have supported the winner who ever they end up being.

Obama didn't vote for the war. He's been campaigning against it since he was a lawyer, but since he wasn't elected until 2004 didn't have a chance to vote against it. Dude has been against it from the start.

The reason Obama is still flush with cash (unlike McCain and Clinton, as well as the Republican party as a whole who are currently facing a massive lack of funds come the Fall across the board) is because people see in him a chance to elect someone who hasn't been corrupted by Washington. The people funding Obama haven't been tapped out yet. Study campaign finance rules just a bit further than "OMG THE BIZNISS IS KILLIN DA WORLD" and you'll get a better idea of how things work. Yes corporations and lobbyists have way too much power. If only someone proposed a ban on lobbyist money!

Oh wait. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_money

He's taken some very brave, and frankly unpopular positions (like talking to rouge nation states), that'll hurt him in the fall because he believes in them. I don't care if you don't like the dude. But don't let your cynicism get in the way of facts. Bash the dude with more than just assumptions that change can never come.

[sgoodcore]

Actually I'm pretty sure Obama voted against the war in Iraq. And what do you expect as far as change goes? Change is a grass roots thing, the main principle of being a progressive is the belief in that. Change will come from the bottom on up to the top and will take a long time to happen. Do you think you're going to move an entire DC polictical monster a mile a minute? I'll take a step at a time until things get back to where they need to be.

I thought he was on the 'for' side way back when? I know everyone changed their minds later.

I know change doesn't happen overnight, that's not what I meant. I was just commenting about his campaign slogan emphasizing 'change'.

My point is, don't forget he's a politician. He's going to pull the same stuff that GW or Clinton or any one of them pull. He's not our savior. He might be better, he might not be, it's hard to say at this point and time will tell. Just saying, don't get too caught up in the charismatic and progressive package he's peddling. There's not a lot of evidence to support his 'progressiveness' in his history and voting records.

I understand what you mean. I do believe he voted against Iraq war policies but I don't know his voting record and my memory isn't amazing so don't quote me.

As far as his progressive history, that's totally true. But he doesn't have much of a history at all. However, his speech about his pastor was something a politician of the ilk we have currently would have shunned, spun, and otherwise deflected. He took it head on and made one of the best speeches about race we've seen in 30+ years. His speech in front of AIPAC I heard Saturday morning on CSPAN was outstanding and more importantly on point.

The thing that struck me about him was that speech on racism. The honestly, the forth-rightness that he brought. The lack of truthiness on an intense issue. Once that happened I was sold. I knew which horse I wanted in the race.

[lokithelion]

Yeah, I didn't mean the original pre-2004 vote. Wasn't there some funding bills at one point or something though? I must have been wrong about his support then. I don't follow election campaigns closely.

In my defense, I did type it with a question mark .

Funding bills aren't the same as supporting the war. Sadly the troops are there. And this president is the kind of asshole to leave them there without bullets if the funding doesn't some through.

Sorry for the rant before. I live in Tennessee and hear the secret Muslim bullshit all the fucking time and I've gotten defensive.