You have the right to not have babies...that's called not doing "it". I don't appreciate the negative tone of this post, because I am one who will be turning to McCain if Hillary does not get the nomination. I have weighed the differences and Obama simply can't be compared to McCain's experience and character.

Clinton '08...if not...McCain all the way!

-educated voter

Educated voter? What about the issues in this election? We've had eight years of calamity under a president whose every (mis)step has been seconded by McCain. He admits to knowing next to nothing about economics (and finished at the bottom of his West Point class, too). He constantly confuses Sunnis and Shiites. So much for experience. Obama and Hillary are much closer together on substantive issues including Roe v. Wade. It's time for you to get better informed than you mistakenly think you are.

I for one will voting for Mayor McCheese. And I do not appreciate the lack of mention of delicious hamburgers and delicious hamburger rights to have delicious hamburger babies.

I am not saying that President Bush did his job well...I am by no means a Bush supporter. But I am not foolish enough to believe Obama's false claims that McCain is a 3rd term Bush. John McCain is the most moderate Republican in history. His ability to work with Democrats in Congress as well as explain his beliefs no matter what his party thinks (ie: Global Warming, Guantanamo Bay) is respectable. McCain's ACTIONS speak louder than Obama's words.

On Roe v. Wade, I disagree with Obama and Hillary, which is why I support McCain

I believe McCain is liberal on enough issues that he is the perfect comprimise candidate for our country in its current state.

Barack Obama's rhetoric will not save the nation in its most dire time of need.

I am informed...make no mistake.

And...if you're trying to point out every mistake that McCain has made, I've got quite the list for you:

-Which candidate LIED and said they had an uncle who helped liberate Auschwitz (and apparently didn't know enough to mention that Aushwitz was liberated by Soviets)?

-Which candidate said that bringing spouses into the nomination battle was "just plain wrong" but at the same time managed to attack Bill Clinton every chance he got?

-Which candidate said he would not wear a flag pin, but the minute people started criticizing him, he wore one? (way to stick with your beliefs)

-Which candidate said he couldn't resign from a church that he has called home for twenty years just because Rev. Wright made a few horrible comments about America?

-Which candidate then decided he WOULD leave said church because the political heat was too hot to handle?

Need I continue? John McCain represents Obama's platform of "hope" "change" and "new politics" better than Obama himself.

I do not mean for this to sound rude, but unlike Obama supporters, Clinton supporters chose a candidate based on experience and ability...not oratorical skills and excitement. Just because Obama outlasted Clinton does not mean that he gained any experience. McCain is superior on our standards. Let us have our own opinions.

I know that McCain is a sensible candidate for some people -- certainly a pro-life voter would lean in his direction. But I maintain that any would-be Clinton voter who would switch to McCain rather than Obama is politically ignorant. The only factors that seem to weigh in on your decision are "experience" and "character" -- dubious metrics in the first place, but it sounds like you're saying that as long as a candidate has been around for a while and stands firm in his or her beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, then that's the candidate for you. That is not what I would call "educated."

-Which candidate said he would not wear a flag pin, but the minute people started criticizing him, he wore one? (way to stick with your beliefs)

My very favorite silly non-issue. For those of you who haven't been following it: neither Obama, nor any other candidate, nor the pundits who question him on the subject, wears a flag pin every day. When asked "why are you not wearing a flag pin" -- often by people who are, themselves, not wearing flag pins -- Obama rightly points out how stupid that question is. And, of course, he has never said he would not wear a flag pin.

I understand the urge to find anything that will stick to Obama -- he's been the Teflon candidate for months now, much to the Clintons' collective chagrin. But the flag pin thing is just comedy.

Actually, he did come out and say he would not wear one, that is why it became a bigger deal than it should have. He specifically said that he felt it was a false way of showing patriotism and that he would not wear a pin. I'm not saying it makes him a bad American, I'm saying it shows just how little his so-called "beliefs" mean to him when the political scene gives him heat.

And I'm sorry, experience is important. Our nation is in shambles and I simply can't vote for a candidate based on faith and pretty speeches alone. McCain has been around longer, he's seen how it's done. We can't have on the job training for this coming president. Maybe someday Obama will be the best candidate...today is not that day.

"Dustin" really zeroes in on the big issues, doesn't he? And the experience he credits McCain with has not prevented the Republican from following the old GOP saws on war, taxing, and corporate privileges. The closer the campaign gets to November the more allied McCain is with the Bush base. I think the brewing Phil Gramm controversy demonstrates the sheer hypocrisy of McCain on Israel. For those who want courses of action altered, foreign and domestic, it's party policy that moves us to throw the Republicans out of the White House and install a Democrat.

Again, what about the delicious hamburgers? Now is not the time for bellies to go unsatiated.

Thanks Andrew for writing this post. Now you can see the kind of low level arguments that get thrown around.

Some folks are not talking about the issues, they are talking about character. Particularly arguments surrounding Obama involve character assasination, a tactic the right wing media in this country has used very effectively in the last 8 years. It's a tactic that is used to distract the public from the real issues at stake.

My suggestion to anyone reading this would be to go on the respective campaign websites, read policy stances, and make your own decisions about where you stand. Anyone who does the research will plainly see that Obama and Clinton are more similar on policy stances than Obama and McCain, who are seemingly opposed on everything except Ethics Reform.

It's obvious that Clinton and Obama are more similar than Clinton and McCain. There is no arguing that. But I think what the above comments were trying to point out is that Obama is just as hypocritical as any other politician that has surfaced over the years. We have no background to prove that he will deliver on his promises. It's an awful leap of faith. McCain has proven to accomplish, Obama simply hasn't been around enough to prove that his "change" and "hope" and "new government" have any meaning.

I suggest all of you take some more time to look at the issues at stake, and set aside petty disagreements and maybe even some views. Look at this objectively, not partisanly.

I think it's awfully hypocritical for the Obama supporters to tell Clinton supporters that character is not important. Obama and his campaign have been attacking Hillary on ethics and personal attributes for months.

No you see the reason why it's not hypocritical for me to say that character is not important is because I would be happy voting for either Hillary or Obama. They have both had their characters brought into question because they're in the public limelight, not because they're horrible people. I think they both are admirable people; they are both capable leaders who I am very heppy to have working in government period. Given the choice between Obama and McCain it seems evident to me that if you agree with Hilary's policy choices you have to vote for Obama, otherwise you're the hypocrite.

Mary -- you agree that Clinton's and Obama's stances are largely similar. But you argue that it might be better for a Clinton supporter to side with McCain, who has "proven" that he will work towards goals that are in total opposition to any sane Clinton supporter's goals?

Better to go with the guy who definitely disagrees with you on almost every major policy decision, rather than the guy who might only be pretending to agree with you? How does that make any sense?

Andrew, Julia, Dr. F., I applaud your noble efforts. But we've all known for quite some time, people in this country don't vote on the issues, but how they "feel." There's a reason everything is such a disaster.

May I present an article from a well-respected news journal:
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/yee_haw_my_vote_cancels_out

I think that everyone on these political blogs, even myself, sound hypocritical. There are plenty of Clinton supporters who feel Obama supporters support him for reasons other than issues. There are plenty of Obama supporters who can't imagine why anyone would support Clinton. People pick a favorite from the start and no matter what happens their opinion is swayed toward that candidate.

And in response to Andrew's accusation, yes. John McCain does not disagree with me on nearly as many issues as you infer, but at this point in history, I will choke down another four years of a Republican if that is the only candidate that I feel has the necessary know-how. I hold no disrespect for Obama, I feel he is a great politician and will be unbelievably important in American politics. My choice right now, though, is that I do not want to risk that he doesn't know enough about how to fix these problems. It is my personal opinion, whether it makes sense to you or not. Also, I have weighed the issues and their importance to me. I do not appreciate the accusation that I was foolish enough to pick a candidate without knowing what they stand for.

John McCain is not George W. Bush - as a Republican goes, he's about as far as you can get. The fact that "third term Bush" is Obama's number one attack against him makes me lose respect and trust for him. And seeing as he has given no details into his policies, all we have to go on with him is that trust. I'm undecided at this point...but worried.

I'm sorry to make that accusation, Mary, but nobody would flip from Clinton to McCain unless policy was the last thing on their mind. If your political views are in line with McCain's, then were you only interested in Clinton because her presidency would have been a symbolic victory for women -- policy be damned? If so, then you're the GOP's problem I suppose.

But if you consider yourself a Democrat, I can think of only two reasons why you'd vote for McCain rather than Obama. I'll be charitable and assume it's because of Clinton's infamous comments that only she and McCain had passed the "Commander-In-Chief threshold". But I wonder what you'll be saying in the coming weeks, after Clinton concedes defeat and throws her support behind Obama?

I supported Clinton for numerous reasons:

1.) Iraq - I don't know what to think about the war as it is today, but I respected her ability to stick with the choice she made back in her first term.

My current standing on the war, as I said, is mixed. I do not like it, I wish we could leave, but I don't know that the Democrats plan for immediate withdrawal is realistic. I trust McCain to know the most about what to do in a situation like this and understand what will and will not work at a time of war.

2.) Hillary was the only candidate, in my opinion, to have clear outlines as to what she would do once elected president. She had a plan, and I was happy with the majority of her policies.

I now feel that McCain has a clearer plan for the nation. I simply feel Obama's promises for "hope" and "change" are too vague and have nothing to back them up.

3.) Health care. Now before you attack me on this...please listen to my thought process. Hillary's plan was one that worked to get covereage for all Americans. She specifically outlined where she would get the money from (taxing insurance companies and creating more competition (and jobs) to provide lower rates). Obama's plan said how much money he would use, but not where he would get it. When pressed about the issue during a debate, he was pressured into saying that he will have to raise taxes. Hillary's plan was not going to do that.

I currently feel that neither of the remaining candidates have a universal plan. That's okay, as long as something is changed. I feel that McCain's plan, though less drastic than the Democrats, is one of reform. He too has specific plans outlined on how to lower the cost while still maintaining quality.

4.) This is not policy driven, but Hillary has proven time and time again that she is a fighter. She didn't give up when she had problems with Bill. She didn't give up when the media counted her out. John McCain has that same persona. Obama didn't have a real media controversy until the Reverand Wright issue, I'm not saying that makes him a bad man...he is very lucky. Hillary just proved to me that she could handle the heat...as did McCain. Obama did a very good job running his campaign, but I don't think he has had to deal with even close to the political heat he will receieve in coming months.

These are only a few reasons. I do consider myself a Democrat, but I am by no means a left-wing liberal.

I also tend to lean pro-life, because there are so many families out there interested in adopting.

I also tend to agree with McCain on issues like the Supreme Court. I believe they are to interpret laws, not make them. Though times change and laws need to be updated, I don't feel a liberal court is what we need right now.

I also love McCain's anti-torture beliefs. This is a very liberal idea and I am glad that McCain supports it, especially with all his military experience.

Also, McCain believes in climate change, and I feel very strongly about that.

I have always held these beliefs, but I supported Clinton because I felt her direct plans and the fact that I knew she was a fighter put her over the top. Plus, the fact that I was a Democrat made me like her even more. But now that she has seemingly lost, I can not throw my lot in Obama, at least not now.

I know most of you will still disagree with me, but I have my reasons. The only time in my life I voted Republican was for Reagan's second term, but by the looks of it I will be doing it again in November.

I'm sorry if you feel that my decision is foolish or "politically ignorant" but I have put thought into this.

and Hillary's comments had nothing to do with me not wanting to vote for Obama...nor did Obama's comments about her throughout the election. This isn't about sour grapes.

I could understand, Mary, if you were giving reasons why you wouldn't bother to vote in November. But I can't comprehend, even from the reasons you've given, why you'd switch from one pole to its opposite.

Your first two reasons are patently bogus.

1. Clinton made the wrong call in 2002 on the Iraq war, but she's sticking by that wrong call -- that's a reason to support her? That's the kind of leadership we've had for the last eight years, and where has it gotten us?

2. So Clinton had a clear plan, and McCain had an equally clear but opposite plan. His plans are right-wing, whereas hers are left-wing. Just the fact that he "has a plan" alone is no reason to vote for someone diametrically opposed to your first choice! That is senseless.

3. Health care is a complex issue, and it's important to understand that none of the candidates -- not Clinton, not Obama, and not McCain -- have proposed a truly universal health care plan. Specifically, under Clinton's plan, uninsured Americans would be forced to purchase private insurance. Until one of our candidates has the balls to stand up for true socialized medicine, it'll never be truly universal. But even here you admit that McCain's plan doesn't go as far as Obama's towards what I assume is your goal.

4. She's a fighter? Newsflash: she lost. Apparently she's not a good enough fighter. Meanwhile, everything she's thrown at Obama has slid right off. He met Pastorgate with a speech that has been "heralded as historic", all while Clinton was being contradicted by Sinbad. Just because someone's willing to bite your ear off, that doesn't make them a good fighter.

And what of McCain? You like that he's against torture? Were you aware that he voted against a ban on waterboarding less than five months ago? Are you sure he's the candidate of the environment? (And even if McCain was consistent on torture and global warming, why would this be a reason to vote for him instead of Obama?) If your views on abortion and liberal-appointed judges are strong enough to flip you to the Republican candidate, why on earth were you voting for Clinton in the first place?

If you want to read Obama's plan for the future you can access that via his website: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

The Blueprint for Change: Obama's Plan for America, is the most comprehensive plan for our future I have ever seen from a presidential candidate. This document is evidence that Obama is not just talking about plans for "change" but that he actually has a very comprehensive plan for change already proposed.

I just don't understand it when people say that Obama just talks about change but has no concrete plans! In fact, he has explained much more about his plans for America than any other candidate.

Well Andrew, your arguments are a matter of opinion. I happen to believe the people who voted to go to war made the right decision at the time for the safety of our nation. I feel Bush executed the war very poorly, but I believe it was necessary for our safety.

And McCain's plans are by no means opposite to Clinton's.

My goal for health care is not universal, I just feel the system needs to be reformed. I don't think it's right that people should be turned away because they are sick (here I refer to insurance companies).

And, she did technically lose this round of the nomination process. And call me in denial, but she lost on technicalities. Had Florida and Michigan obeyed primary rules...had the delegates been awarded like the general election...had we counted popular vote more than delegates...had caucus states had equal representation as primary states...if any one of these things were different she would be the nominee. And despite her long odds she never gave up. That's respectable, whether you like her or not and whether or not she's the Democratic nominee.

I've been voting for over twenty years now, and sometimes it just comes down to who I as a voter feel is best to lead my country. I weighted the issues, and felt that Clinton was that person. Now that she is out of the race, I have re-weighted the issues and I am leaning toward McCain. I am able to look past the letter following their name on the ticket and look into what they will be able to accomplish as president.

I have already explained my views, and you have insulted them, so I don't see a worth in continuing. It's politics, people have differences of opinion. I am allowed to switch from Clinton to McCain if I so choose, it's a democracy.

I understand if you don't agree with my decision, but don't insult my intelligence. I will vote for who I believe will be the best candidate for our nation.

And julia, thank you for the link and I have read over it before. I've compared McCain and Obama's plans. I feel McCain has crossed party lines much more than Obama has, I believe McCain has talked straight on issues more than Obama has, and I believe McCain is more prepared than Obama is. I realize many may disagree with me, but again, it's the beauty of democracy.

Yes, Mary, you have a right to your opinion.

But don't forget: you came to my blog and started leaving comments. That means it's well within my rights -- nay, my responsibility -- to insult your intelligence for it.

Once again people are voting for political reasons and not on actual policy. And people are surprised our representatives do not represent our best interests! It's no wonder bridges are falling down, energy is so expensive, and the rich are getting richer. The party of no government (or should I say poor government)will continue to degrade our country if given the chance. I am NOT able to look past the letter next to a candidates name because I know certainly that I am a democrat. No candidate is going to change that.

Andrew, from your comments and language used in the blog you have proven your own pitiful intelligence. Let the woman be, just because we don't agree doesn't mean we have to insult her views. Grow up.

In defense of Andrew I will say one, no I will say two things. One is that he presents valid arguments to back up his opinion. The second is that his arguments are so well thought out that the only response and/or rebuttal is to say you've been insulted. The intention is not to insult but to make a case for his argument. If you feel insulted everytime someone disproves your argument then I think it is you who has some growing up to do!

I think she feels insulted at the fact that he's calling her stupid...not because he disagrees.

I never called her stupid, stupid. I just called you stupid, though. Dumbass.

You are laughable. But I would ask Mary and Dustin this...would you support him if he chose Hillary as his running mate?

(moving past childish and trying to attempt political discussion)

I don't think I would. I feel it would be a very good political decision for him, but I still feel he is far too inexperienced. Also, if he doesn't choose her I think it sends him whole message out the window. He's going to unify? He's going to change government? How can he unify the country and the world if he can't even work with another Democrat?

Fah! If he does choose her, he proves your point that he's not a fighter -- he's willing to give in just because she makes some weak "I'd accept if he offered" moves. Damned if he does, damned if he don't.

I'm all for unifying the party, or whatever, but he'd be a fool to pick her as his running mate now. She just played it totally wrong -- not that she would've gotten it if she'd played it right, either. She fought too dirty, and now she'll pay in political dividends.

You're an unfortunate outcome of the media on this one. Her campaign puts out an ad...and she's dirty politics. Obama stands right next to Richardson as he bashes the living daylights out of Clinton...and he's new politics...yea, ok.

I've been trying to ditch this...but you're just a fool. Whether you love her or her, a joint ticket is a great way to unify the party. I understand the arguments against it, but really, how else does he expect to get the major blocs that have stuck with her? As you can see, many of us are stubborn people :D.

This of it like this: his supporters that her may not like it, but they're not going to vote McCain or ditch him in any way.

Independants, if they were willing to vote for the most liberal senator in Congress, having Clinton on the ticket will not deter them (they're not very independant)

You must'nt forget, 50% of the Democratic party voted for her and wanted her. About 15% of those are angry enough that they claim they'll vote McCain (I don't include myself in that because my reasons are not out of anger or for Obama). Something has to be done, whether you like it or not.

I think what must be done, will be done: Clinton will eat some crow and support the hell out of Obama and whoever his eventual running mate will be. She and Bill will travel to the regions where Obama needs help and stump for him, and in exchange he'll give her something -- maybe a Supreme Court seat, but not the Veep spot.

He probably wouldn't have given her the Veep spot before this week, for a variety of reasons -- she's been insulting him all along, subtly appealed to racist voters more than once, pointed out that McCain has "passed the threshold" while Obama hasn't, and pointed out that, hey, even if she loses, someone could still kill the guy!

...but if that hadn't been enough, this week she's been pushing hard for the Veep spot. If offered, she'll accept -- we've all seen it. (This is the woman who, not long ago, offered Obama the VP position -- an irony not lost on me.) She knew she was a longshot for VP, so she had to sneak in one last suckerpunch: now if he doesn't appoint her, it'll be seen (by, for example, Mary) as a sign that Obama doesn't intend to "unify the party" after it was rent asunder by...you guessed it...Clinton.

But as the anti-establishment candidate, he can't very well pick her. And even if he could, he certainly can't now that it appears she's trying to twist his arm into it, even if he wanted to. So, I'd start forgetting about a "dream ticket" now.

Then again, I thought Kerry would win.

Oh, and Dustin: don't even give me that "most liberal senator" crap. That's exactly what they said about Kerry four years ago. Come on.

Oh, and Mary, I wasn't being facetious before -- I want to hear your reaction to McCain's support of waterboarding by the Bush administration. Did you know about it? Does it affect your view of him, since you're against torture?

I don't know for a fact that he's the most liberal senator, but I've read it in numerous publications. I didn't mean it to be insulting, it's just what I've heard.

And you bring up a very good issue with the waterboarding I will admit. I really respect his references to closing GitMo and on John Stewart of all things, he states how "America is not like an episode of 24...torture doesn't work."

We'll have to wait and see I guess.