Bullishly or not, Clinton supporters accept Obama

Many voters don't realize that the Clinton's were successful in the White House. It was peace and prosperity. At the very least,. he needs all the Clintons to stump for him; they have a large following. Hatred is not in any way cool or attractive. I'm sure that Barack would like any of his followers perpetuating an unreasonable distaste for the woman who was his mentor when he came the Senate two years ago.

I do not believe you are a Democrat MonaP. I think you are a Republican. How else can one describe they hate, disrespect and bigotry you are spewing at Obama. He is not responsible for the problems with MI and FL. The DNC took a decision after the two States broke the rules. You are being very unfair to Obama and the voters who made him the nominee. Why are you afraid to say exactly why you hate Obama? I think you are qualified to be a Right Wing Republican.

MonaP
BO is a liar, racist, inexperienced joke of a candidate and those of us who value our country first and our party second have NO choice but to vote for McCain.

How-so?

You can expect the Pols to fall in line....They need the party. Maybe Hillary will drop on her knees too.

We don't need them [The Democratic Farce]. Not the way it's being shoved down our throat.

So don't get mad.... have your party

....Just don't wait up for us ... in November.

gpnavonod You can expect the Pols to fall in line....They need the party. Maybe Hillary will drop on her knees too. We don't need them [The Democratic Farce]. Not the way it's being shoved down our throat. So don't get mad.... have your party ....Just don't wait up for us ... in November.

... What? Can someone decipher this post for me?

deciphering - the party politicians are falling in line to support Obama because - basically - they have to. They need the party, they need a presidential candidate.

We, the rank and file democrats, don't need them (the Democratic Farce). Not the way it is being forced on us by the party big wigs

So don't get mad, Obamaniacs ... have your party

... just don't wait up for us ... in November, as once again the party big wigs pick a losing candidate, and the country votes for the other candidate.

Really, arcane, it's not that hard. All you have to do is be able to read

Vote on the issues. Period.

eriq samson
Really, arcane, it's not that hard. All you have to do is be able to read.

Wowa wowa, reely? i so sry, hav hard tyme reedeeng. deez lingwige claysez ar harded.

Mona,

It's unfortunate that you feel that you weren't treated with respect. I disagree, for reasons including but not limited to the following:

Hillary Clinton ran for three months after it was clear that she would not win the pledged delegate count. This allowed her to stage a very strong comeback, and until she lost convincingly in NC and almost lost 91% white Indiana, she actually had a chance to turn some superdelegates around. After that night, Obama stopped campaigning against her, pivoting to McCain, and the media rightfully pointed out that she was creating ever deeper divisions in the party, of which you are a prime example. They did, however, give her tons of credit for her determination, and her campaign spokespeople got hours of TV time to try to explain why they thought they had a path to victory.

Any other candidate in history, which means any male candidate, would have been dropped from media coverage after losing 11 primaries in a row, especially if those losses gave her opponent an insurmountable lead. This year, the very fact that she did not concede was news, so the media continued to follow her. After May 5th, that was the only story, the fact that she was still going on, talking about the popular vote, counting Florida and Michigan, and how she was the candidate of white people.

I think she was treated with great respect. 90% of the MSM gave her credit for her determination against all odds, and for her ability to connect with voters that Obama was not. 10% of the media pointed out (correctly) that her only path to the nomination would be for superdelegates to risk alienating the millions of new voters that Obama had brought to the party in building his lead.

I have two links that I hope you will look at. One is from the Pew Trust, dispelling the notion that Obama received more favorable treatment than Clinton early in the campaign. They studied the evidence, and found that both candidates had about twice as much favorable coverage as negative until the Saturday Night Live skit, after which Obama's coverage abruptly turned negative. That was before Reverend Wright showed up, too.

http://loosecannon.newsvine.com/_news/2008/06/05/1544859-did-clinton-suffer-from-biased-news-coverage

The other is a segment of Chris Matthews' show last night, in which three prominent female activists talk about McCain's record on womens' issues, and how devastating a McCain victory would be to women and children not only in this country, but around the world.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25104803#25104803

I would welcome you to tell me specific examples of disrespect shown to Hillary by Obama's campaign or even surrogates. He always defended her right to stay in the race to the end, and was complimentary about her as a candidate and as a trend-setter. If I am incorrect, please let me know.

No it doesn't. Again, politicians have to support the party if they want a future in the party, but a politician's endorsement means absolutely nothing to me. So the pols may fall in line, but I won't because I'm not a poker chip to be passed over to the guy who won the hand. When my candidate is out of the race, the race starts all over again.

I will never vote for Obama. He is the least qualified of any person who ran for President. While I'm not crazy about John McCain, he is in my mind the lesser of two evils. I would feel far more comfortable with him as Commander in Chief than I ever would with Obama.

Don't count on the average voter falling in line with the political types. We simply aren't driven by the same concerns - we don't care what the party says because the Democratic Party doesn't care to have a primary system that is democratic. All votes are not created equally in a Dem primary.

Nothing disillusioned me more than learning how the Democratic primary system works. It's a joke...and I would have said that no matter who won.

Kim-436
Don't count on the average voter falling in line with the political types. We simply aren't driven by the same concerns - we don't care what the party says because the Democratic Party doesn't care to have a primary system that is democratic. All votes are not created equally in a Dem primary.

Nothing disillusioned me more than learning how the Democratic primary system works. It's a joke...and I would have said that no matter who won.

That's funny.
You know, since I'm an average voter who is an Independent and voting for Barack Obama.

Don't count on the average voter falling in line with the political types

You may have a point. The "average" voter voted to re-elect George W. Bush.

The point I was making is that average voters make their own decisions, and yes, unfortunately, that includes voting for GW, when all conventional wisdom said that he couldn't possibly win again.

I take issue with this remark. I am a Hillary supporter who will not vote for Obama and I am not a racist.

You must live in a really simple world. If this, then that. Believe me, there is a litany of reasons why I won't vote for Obama and not one of them has to do with the color of his skin. We Hillary supporters are supposed to understand all of the good reasons you had for not voting for her, but if we don't want to vote for Obama, there can only be one reason. We're racists!

Except, we're not! If he loses, it will be because he was a bad candidate and no other reason.

There are little differences between the Obama and Clinton policies. To say that you will not vote for one because you only support the other might not show racism or sexism but... when you vote in the general for someone who does not share any of the values or goals as the candidate that you did vote for in the primary you show just one thing...

an act of revenge.

There is still racism in this country. There is still sexism in this country. These will not quickly die. Will people not vote for him because he's black... I'm sure of it. Will people not vote for him because he's not Hillary... I'm sure of that one too.

The biggest thing I'm sure about is that this country can not afford, literally can not afford, Bush's third term. This country has been holding onto the last strand of the lifeline in hopes that January 9th will come quickly... we can't hold on for another four years!

The Bush third term thing is getting pretty tired. McCain is his own person and always has been. Do I disagree with some of his policies? Sure. Do I agree with every Democratic policy? Of course not.

I will pick the PERSON I think will do the best job and that is not Obama.

I will pick the PERSON I think will do the best job and that is not Obama.

Well McCain will certainly appoint better torturers to act in your name. He will also continue to blow the @!$%# out of them there Arabs in your name. And run the country to bankruptcy through tax cuts so your grandchildren grow up in poverty, in your name.

Kim-436
If he loses, it will be because he was a bad candidate and no other reason.

I don't think anyone should call you racist simply because you're not willing to vote for Barack Obama. I don't think that necessarily has anything to do with the way you feel about black people. You may be married to a black man. No one here knows. I apologize on behalf of anyone who makes blanket statements like that. It may not mean anything, but I find it necessary.

That having been said, you're above comment ignores the fact that racism is still prevalent all around us, and has reared it's ugly head in this election already. What percentage of Clinton supporters in Kentucky and WV had the audacity to openly admit that race factored into their decision? And that's just the people who were willing to admit it.

It's obvious that there are people in this country who won't vote for Obama because he's black. Some of those people are former Clinton supporters. To deny that is to bury your head in the sand.

The Bush third term thing is getting pretty tired. McCain is his own person and always has been. Do I disagree with some of his policies? Sure. Do I agree with every Democratic policy? Of course not.

I will pick the PERSON I think will do the best job and that is not Obama.

Did you know that McCain has sided with George Bush 91% of the time in the Senate since 2001? His economic policy is eerily similar to that of George Bush. His priorities regarding health care and tax cuts are practically identical. His agenda in Iraq is the same.

It's okay to say that you don't think Obama is qualified (though I think you should take some time to legitimize that claim with yourself, not for anyone else), but to say that McCain is his own person when he's clearly taking the mantle from Bush on almost every major policy is unrealistic. John McCain is going to represent a third term of the failed Bush economic policies, an endless occupation in Iraq that's costing billions and more dollars every week, etc.

Another thing about experience: If McCain's experience is going to lead him to make the same mistakes that Bush is making, is his experience really worth anything?

And another question: If Obama declared right now who he would appoint to his cabinet, would he have a chance at winning your vote if you had confidence in his cabinet members?

When McBush flip-flops from being against Bush to being in favor of everything Bush stands for then how can his campaign not be Bush's third term?

Nothing he could do would make one bit of difference. He won the nomination by pretending to be a totally different person than he is. He is arrogant and phony, and I could never vote for a person like that.

Obama won the nomination by being himself, he hasn't veered from his major policies.

He's veered plenty. All of a sudden he's moving to the center. I wonder how his die-hard liberal backers will like that.

Show me where he has veered on major policies. The only issue I've seen him take a step to the side on is the FISA compromise. But even with that, he has made a promise to filibuster the immunity portion of the bill [now it's just a matter of seeing if he'll stick to that promise.]

Again, I won't vote for Obama and I don't believe he is a racist, nor do I consider myself a racist. There are other issues at play, people.

I don't think he's a racist either. Instead, I think he's an opportunist. He used his church for political gain and when it was no longer useful to him, he quit. He's just another typical politician, except that he convinced all of his supporters that he's not.

Obama supporters see "the answer" in him, I just see a phony.

I think he's an opportunist.

What would that make Hillary and the use of who she married? Or how she magically moved to New York to launch her Senate bid?

All politicians are opportunists. It comes with the territory. Read about how Lincoln secured the nomination sometime.

Of course they are all opportunists. I completely accept that premise. What is galling is that Obama based his campaign on the "fact" that he was different. He would end "politics as usual."

He is a PHONY!

Being different does not mean being different in all aspects. Grow up already.

Actually, it was the not-so-grown-up Obama supporters who bought into his "non-politician" line. And they believed him when he said he didn't run a negative campaign. Just because you say it often enough does not make it true. What is true is that most of the time he had his campaign operatives do his dirty work, but that doesn't make him any less complicit in their actions.

Since his biggest claim to fame is that he will change politics - and their is so much proof to the contrary - what then is the reason I should vote for him? It sure can't be because of qualifications. He doesn't have any.

What was negative about Obama's campaign, aside from the fact that it didn't go well for Hillary?

John McCain hasn't done anything besides serve in the Senate for decades. Barack Obama has served in the Senate, as well as in the IL state Senate and on the ground in inner-city areas within the past few years.

Besides, why is having been subjected to torture a qualification to be President?

Obama's whole campaign was based on the fact that he would not bring "politics as usual" (like Hillary) nor would he "be controlled by lobbyists" (like Hillary). "She would do ANYTHING to get elected." He questioned her honesty...isn't that the same as calling her a liar. His campaign accused her and Bill of promoting racism. Where I come from that's pretty negative, because all of it is in the realm of personal attacks. Her huge sin was pointing out his inexperience and contradictory statements. The spin, which was controlled by his campaign and the complicit mainstream media, was so one-sided, I have given up watching any political television at all.

Because we are not objects to be bought, sold, or traded. We're people with our own minds, our own convictions, and we will decide the person we choose to vote for. Some will vote Obama, but I'm guessing a significant number (that without a doubt includes me) will not vote for Obama, they will either vote McCain, write in Hillary, or stay home.

The reason you supported Hillary Clinton is that you thought she is the person who would make the best decisions for America. Although she isn't President, she made a decision (you trust her for decisions, remember) that Barack Obama is the best candidate for President.

Just wondering, why don't you support Obama? Remember, he didn't decide the Democratic Party nomination process either. (And the Republican process is very similar.)

If the Democrats had use the Republican primary process, she would have won, because most of their states used winner take all, meaning her large state wins would have put her over the top.

I supported Hillary because I thought she would do the best job of running the country. I don't believe anything anyone says in the campaigning process. Everything is about political viability. She has to support him if she wants to remain politically viable - he had to say nice things about her if he wants a ghost of a chance of winning in November.

Endorsements are absolutely meaningless to me. I could not care less who anyone supports. I make up my own mind.

Obama lacks the qualifications to be President - and I'm not impressed with his honesty or character either.

If the Democrats had use the Republican primary process, she would have won, because most of their states used winner take all, meaning her large state wins would have put her over the top.

If the Dems had used the Republican process, the Obama campaign would have run a different race. Hillary may very well have won, but Obama wouldn't have put such a premium on congressional districts and delegate apportions and such. He would have campaigned harder in states that he had a chance to win in, and things would have worked out differently all around.

Which shows what a great political machine that Obama who is not a "politician" had. The premise that he is squeaky clean and above the fray is a pure and simple joke.

It just shows that they understood the rules better.

The guy can't win. You dislike him for whatever reason, and are finding whatever excuse you can to justify your feelings. It's okay to just say that you don't like him and won't vote for him. That's your right. But the fact that he and his campaign understood the process and won the nomination by putting together a thorough and extensive plan isn't a negative.

Obama lacks the qualifications to be President - and I'm not impressed with his honesty or character either.

What exactly are the qualifications to be president?

Currently...

We have a 46 year old junior senator that outright opposes the war that is killing our economy. He's also a much better speaker and is willing to use that gift to speak to the world, starting the course to fixing our crapped image.

We have a 71 year old senior senator who is a hothead... a flip-flopper... and generally an evil man (as said by his own Republican party)

McCain insulted Congress and their inaction to end the war in Somalia when he saw no end in sight.

Those same words were used by our wonderful late Tim Russert as a general question to McCain...

McCain, not knowing that they were his words, denounced them... thinking that they were about the Iraq war.

"And my response to that is... And what happens after we leave? Listen to all the experts..."

McCain gets owned on Meet the Press

No presidential candidate is perfect. But do you want someone who is a hot headed flip-flopper talking to the world in your name?

gar, again, do you feel justified in explaining to families the death of their young ones at the hands of a mccain who has no intention of ending this war? and you supported hillary? i don't think so... again, so sad...

Sorry, but I'm a real Hillary supporter who has never voted for a Republican president in my 40 years of voting. I'm not a Republican either. From here on out, I'm an independent who will vote for the best qualified candidate. Under any rubric that matters to me, Obama is not qualified. I am not even impressed by his speaking ability because it reminds me of a televangelist. Where others are moved, I am creeped out.

You were probably creeped out by the movie Titanic too, its a problem for FOX NEWS viewers most of you are like automatons something close but not quite human

I'm an independent who will vote for the best qualified candidate.

The Supreme Court just re-asserted the American Constitution over Guantanamo. If McCain gets a few appointments to the Court, that decision will be reversed. If he's your candidate, I guess it's safe to say that you believe the support of extra-constitutional tribunals, secret courts, and torture is just fine. How positively Soviet of you, comrade!

McCain is an outspoke critic of torture. Remember he was a prisoner of war who was tortured?

Kim-436McCain is an outspoke critic of torture. Remember he was a prisoner of war who was tortured?

He most certainly used to be and I applauded him then, but truth of the matter is that he has been very weak in the fight against torture as of late.

I look at his voting record: he hasn't been walking the walk since he decided he wanted to be President. Anything the drooling idiot in the White House wants McCain has given him. If he were as principled as you claim, he would have led fillibusters in the Senate to deny funding. Hell, he's voted for the funds for the secret prisons.

Sorry, he's a hypocrite and a liar. And I supported his 2000 campaign.

Politicians, unfortunately, all do the politically expedient things it takes to get elected. Obama is no different, though he says he is. Examples are too numerous to mention, and I'm sure you could explain them all away.

Kim-436
Politicians, unfortunately, all do the politically expedient things it takes to get elected.

Yes, but is catering to the pro-torture clan acceptable because of that fact? Show me an issue that Obama is being lax on that equates to the importance of allowing Bush and cronies to approve of and continue their corrupt policies on torture.

Or failing to support eterans when you're a veteran yourself?

Where has he catered to torturers and when has he failed to support veterans? I think you've been listening to too much Keith Olbermann lately.

Not supporting veterans:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, seemed to give a thumbs down to bipartisan legislation that would greatly expand educational benefits for members of the military returning from Iraq and Afghanistan under the GI Bill.

Supporting torture:

The Senate joined the House in passing an intelligence bill that would ban the CIA from using waterboarding as an interrogation tactic. The CIA would have to abide by the Army Field Manual, which also prohibits beatings, electric or temperature shocks, forced nudity, mock executions, and the use of dogs. Some of those abusive techniques were on global display in the torture photos from Abu Ghraib.

McCain, a Vietnam prisoner of war, has long condemned waterboarding as torture, making him more sensitive than President Bush on an issue that stained America's image. But the Arizona senator and virtual Republican nominee to replace Bush voted against the bill. Bush says he will veto the measure.

Note that neither site links to Olbermann or anyone at NBC News.

Look, spiffie, if you're going to insist on stating facts and then backing them up with independent sources, you're going to take all the fun out of this.

Hillary wasnt running for President because of the policies of Barack Obama she was running for President because of the policies of the Republican Party as represented by George Bush and supported by John McCain

Well, I guess you folks answered Kim for me. ;]

Way to be on the ball guys!

McCain's full statement on why he voted against the bill:

Mr. President, I oppose passage of the Intelligence Authorization Conference Report in its current form. During conference proceedings, conferees voted by a narrow margin to include a provision that would apply the Army Field Manual to the interrogation activities of the Central Intelligence Agency. The sponsors of that provision have stated that their goal is to ensure that detainees under American control are not subject to torture. I strongly share this goal, and believe that only by ensuring that the United States adheres to our international obligations and our deepest values can we maintain the moral credibility that is our greatest asset in the war on terror.

That is why I fought for passage of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), which applied the Army Field Manual on interrogation to all military detainees and barred cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of any detainee held by any agency. In 2006, I insisted that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) preserve the undiluted protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for our personnel in the field. And I have expressed repeatedly my view that the controversial technique known as "waterboarding" constitutes nothing less than illegal torture.

Throughout these debates, I have said that it was not my intent to eliminate the CIA interrogation program, but rather to ensure that the techniques it employs are humane and do not include such extreme techniques as waterboarding. I said on the Senate floor during the debate over the Military Commissions Act, "Let me state this flatly: it was never our purpose to prevent the CIA from detaining and interrogating terrorists. On the contrary, it is important to the war on terror that the CIA have the ability to do so. At the same time, the CIA's interrogation program has to abide by the rules, including the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act." This remains my view today.

When, in 2005, the Congress voted to apply the Field Manual to the Department of Defense, it deliberately excluded the CIA. The Field Manual, a public document written for military use, is not always directly translatable to use by intelligence officers. In view of this, the legislation allowed the CIA to retain the capacity to employ alternative interrogation techniques. I'd emphasize that the DTA permits the CIA to use different techniques than the military employs, but that it is not intended to permit the CIA to use unduly coercive techniques – indeed, the same act prohibits the use of any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.

Similarly, as I stated after passage of the Military Commissions Act in 2006, nothing contained in that bill would require the closure of the CIA's detainee program; the only requirement was that any such program be in accordance with law and our treaty obligations, including Geneva Common Article 3.

The conference report would go beyond any of the recent laws that I just mentioned – laws that were extensively debated and considered – by bringing the CIA under the Army Field Manual, extinguishing thereby the ability of that agency to employ any interrogation technique beyond those publicly listed and formulated for military use. I cannot support such a step because I have not been convinced that the Congress erred by deliberately excluding the CIA. I believe that our energies are better directed at ensuring that all techniques, whether used by the military or the CIA, are in full compliance with our international obligations and in accordance with our deepest values. What we need is not to tie the CIA to the Army Field Manual, but rather to have a good faith interpretation of the statutes that guide what is permissible in the CIA program.

This necessarily brings us to the question of waterboarding. Administration officials have stated in recent days that this technique is no longer in use, but they have declined to say that it is illegal under current law. I believe that it is clearly illegal and that we should publicly recognize this fact.

In assessing the legality of waterboarding, the Administration has chosen to apply a "shocks the conscience" analysis to its interpretation of the DTA. I stated during the passage of that law that a fair reading of the prohibition on cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment outlaws waterboarding and other extreme techniques. It is, or should be, beyond dispute that waterboarding "shocks the conscience."

It is also incontestable that waterboarding is outlawed by the Military Commissions Act, and it was the clear intent of Congress to prohibit the practice. The MCA enumerates grave breaches of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions that constitute offenses under the War Crimes Act. Among these is an explicit prohibition on acts that inflict "serious and non-transitory mental harm," which the MCA states "need not be prolonged." Staging a mock execution by inducing the misperception of drowning is a clear violation of this standard. Indeed, during the negotiations, we were personally assured by Administration officials that this language, which applies to all agencies of the U.S. Government, prohibited waterboarding.

It is unfortunate that the reluctance of officials to stand by this straightforward conclusion has produced in the Congress such frustration that we are today debating whether to apply a military field manual to non-military intelligence activities. It would be far better, I believe, for the Administration to state forthrightly what is clear in current law – that anyone who engages in waterboarding, on behalf of any U.S. government agency, puts himself at risk of criminal prosecution and civil liability.

We have come a long way in the fight against violent extremists, and the road to victory will be longer still. I support a robust offensive to wage and prevail in this struggle. But as we confront those committed to our destruction, it is vital that we never forget that we are, first and foremost, Americans. The laws and values that have built our nation are a source of strength, not weakness, and we will win the war on terror not in spite of devotion to our cherished values, but because we have held fast to them.

Yeah, great - he doesn't support waterboarding. Hey cool, I guess torture stops there... Right?... Right?!...

McCain said that while he remains opposed to waterboarding, "We always supported allowing the CIA to use extra measures."

Wait, what?

The Feinstein Amendment would have accomplished all of these objectives, but Senator McCain voted against it, presumably because he wishes that the CIA be permitted to continue the use of other of its enhanced techniques, apart from waterboarding. Those techniques are reported to include stress positions, hypothermia, threats to the detainee and his family, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation. Senator McCain has not explained which of these he thinks are not torture and cruel treatment, nor which he would wish to preserve for use by the CIA. But if the President does as he has promised and follows Senator McCain's lead by vetoing this bill, the CIA will continue to assert the right to use all of these techniques -- and possibly waterboarding, as well.

Source

Oh, well I guess it doesn't.

On veterans, he had his own version of a bill that was designed to encourage more people to join and stay in the service. I don't know about you, but I think a strong military is pretty critical to being a strong nation. I have no quarrel with what he was trying to do.

You know, my thoughts about John [McCain] were, he is fine voting for 600 billion dollars to send these people off. The least we can do is give them at a chance at a first class future. Not only that, the tax payers of America paid for every penny of John McCain's education and they paid for every penny of my education. We both went to the Naval Academy. And the least we can do is to give these people a first class shot at the future.
Jim Webb

But wait! The buck doesn't stop there with McCain and his lack of support for veterans...

McCain argues that making the education benefits too generous will hurt retention, as enlistees will leave for college after three years rather than reenlist. McCain's position makes sense only by overlooking the fact that the main retention (and recruiting) problems facing the military are the Iraq war and the scandals plaguing military and veterans healthcare. (The most recent outrage: In a Memorial Day speech, Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake downplayed the seriousness of brain trauma suffered by tens of thousands of servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, calling many of their diagnoses "overblown" and likening them to youth football injuries.)

The inadequacy of the military's prime recruiting tool -- subsidized college educations -- is hurting recruitment too, and Webb argues this can be fixed only by fixing the GI Bill. He says McCain, a friend, "is missing the boat" by siding with the Bush Pentagon rather than veterans groups. Webb points to a Congressional Budget Office analysis that found any possible losses in retention caused by his bill would be balanced by the increases in recruitment it would generate.

McCain's rationalization for opposing the bill may not hold water, but his stance makes perfect sense in light of his record. From 2004 to 2006, the Disabled Veterans of America gave him annual scores ranging from 50% to the most recent 20% when it comes to supporting the group's legislative priorities. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave him a grade of "D" in its most recent analysis of voting records. The American Legion says he is dead wrong on the GI Bill, as does the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

So let's take McCain up on his invitation. Here is how he has stood on recent legislation supported by major veterans organizations:

* On Webb's GI Bill, he expressed opposition, and he was AWOL when it was time to vote on May 22.

* Last September, he voted against another Webb bill that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.

* On a badly needed $1.5-billion increase for veterans medical services for fiscal year 2007 -- to be funded through closing corporate tax loopholes -- he voted no. He also voted against establishing a trust fund to bolster under-budgeted veterans hospitals.

* In May 2006, he voted against a $20-billion allotment for expanding swamped veterans medical facilities.

* In April 2006, he was one of 13 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment to provide $430 million for veterans outpatient care.

* In March 2004, he voted against and helped defeat on a party-line vote a $1.8-billion reserve for veterans medical care, also funded by closing tax loopholes.
I seeded the article at: McCain's attack on vets

If any Military man or woman or their family member votes for John McCain they do so at their own peril McCain spent the war as a pow which you have to give him credit for vs George Bush but the similarity to the modern military or the conflict in Iraq just doesn't exist as a Vietnam era veteran my self I cant imagine the stress of wondering is this the day some suicide bomber is going to detonate him/her self or is this car coming down the street going to end my life and the lives of my brothers or will it kill some of us and disfigure others or will be leisurely riding down the road and a road side bomb will take our life. Or while we are trying to help repair or build something we might get our head blown off by a sniper. But for all that our troops endure there is a bureaucrat named John McCain saying they deserve a few dollars less in benefits because they only risked there lives and their sanity for one enlistment. He is collecting $58,000 a year in military disabilities from a war that was over 30+ years ago and he quibbles about a few dollars for our sons and daughters who are risking their lives today.

Short version:

I wanna be President, it's my turn! So don't pay attention to what my vote does, only what the meaningless words that come out of my mouth do.

Bull@!$%# Mr. McCain. You lied to us. Your straight talk is as crooked as Bush's.

you are crazy and you didnt give a single reason you are voting for McCain all you did was go through a racist rant about Obama that every one in America knows is untrue even long term Republicans admit that he is a extraordinary politician the likes of which America has never seen.

They both opposed Obama. Which is about the only congruence.

He has been a senator for what ==let me see =a whole year--Hilary was much more qualified whether we

He's been a senator for four years, and he held elective office for eight years before that. Hillary's first elective office was her Senate win in 2000, so Obama actually has four years on her there.

Before that he was a public interest lawyer and constitutional law professor at the prestigious University of Chicago law school. (Imagine having a president who understands constitutional law. How neat would that be?)

It's also worth noting that several presidents have been elected with less "experience" in government than Obama. Ever hear of a guy named Lincoln?

HE has consistently voted to raise taxes

In other words, you weren't going to vote for Hillary, either. You believe in the Magic Tax Cut Fairy that our current President believes is going to fix the terrible deficits he has run up.

your statement" you would have been willing " betrays the fact that you are a republican enough said

And John McCain is the epitome of the son's we want to raise in America, a man that left his crippled wife when a better deal came along that proposed to the 2nd wife before he divorced the first wife, a man that in search of a better deal for himself abandoned his wife and children. no McCain is a golddigger, a influence selling Republican politician who was lucky to escape the Keating 5 scandal with ethics violations.

so let me see you are under stress trying to readjust so you go have a affair on the woman that loved you and stood by you while you were a prisoner, you go find a younger healthy woman who happens to very rich, you propose to her, ,then you divorce your wife and leave your children all on a crippled wife and marry the woman that you had the affair with. do I have it right

gar-284741
Funny his first wife has never said a bad thing about him. You obviously know nothing about the terrible stress that comes form the torture he received. His first wife knew that any war veteran knows the mental stress after victory to re adjust multiply that ten fold for what McCain and his fellow POWs went through. You Obama supporters have to be the most angry people on earth and really need some stress management . Oh by the way McCain still has an excellent relationship with his first wife.You should go out more and quit watching those TV shows about broken marriages. many are by mutual consent.but then there are martyrs who stick around to make both lives unbearable.

McCain is lucky to have an ex-wife as good as Carol, she has had to put up with a lot of crap from him.

gar-284741
You should ask someone who works in a VA hospital how anyone who has under gone many years of stress and torture may act. In WW1 they called it shell shock .

So veterans typically cheat on their wives and call them a c*nt because of shell shock?

What are you going to say when some of the truth will come out about his relationship?. No marriage is made in heaven.Chicago is about as close as they got. I can hear it all now. Hillary started it or McCain started it. A feeling of superiority is a sign of failure

What are you talking about?

gar-284741
Do not blame that word on veterans that is part of the male American lexicon, you do not think they will not find some thing that will be exposed at the right moment, you do not think you fire your big guns at first shot. I am not clairvoyant just an educated guess . If I am wrong I will apologize I hope the phony remarks you have made will render the same from you

I wasn't blaming anything on veterans, just trying to make sense of what you're trying to say. McCain admitted to cheating on his wife by sleeping with women while married to her and called his second wife a c*nt.

gar-284741
Will you ?please give me the reference where you found all this info on what McCain called his wife . I am sure he might have taken a court action against reports like that if it were true. why does his ex always speak well of him. stupid statements will do nothing for the conversation. I am sure if this is all true the major media will repeat and repeat it.t.

I don't think we'll ever know for sure why Carol is still by his side today, she won't talk about it to anyone. If I were to divorce my husband and had children, I would keep ties with and be civil with him for the children. They don't need to suffer because the relationship between me and my husband failed. Media did talk a lot about his marital issues but when he last ran for president and then dropped out. I'm pretty sure it will be brought up again during the General Election - especially when addressing gay marriage rights. Anywho, here is the sourced info you asked me for. :)

While Executive Officer and later as Squadron Commander McCain used his authority to arrange frequent flights that allowed him to carouse with subordinates and "engage in extra-marital affairs." Such behavior was a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice rules against adultery and fraternization with subordinates..

Timberg wrote, "Off duty, usually on routine cross-country flights to Yuma and El Centro, John started carousing and running around with women. To make matters worse, some of the women with whom he was linked by rumor were subordinates . . . At the time the rumors were so widespread that, true or not, they became part of McCain's persona, impossible not to take note of."

While still married to Carol, McCain began an adulterous relationship with Cindy. He married Cindy in May 1980 -- just a month after dumping Carol and securing a divorce. The newlyweds honeymooned in Hawaii.

McCain filed for the divorce, stating in court records that the marriage was "irretrievably broken."

A month after the divorce, McCain married Cindy Lou Hensley, heiress to Phoenix-based Hensley & Co., the nation's second-largest Anheuser-Busch distributor.
Associated Press Writer, February 24, 2000

Timburg first wrote of the rumors but McCain later acknowledged the rumors as true... Mr. McCain has acknowledged running around with women and accepted responsibility for the breakup of the marriage, without going into details.
P.O.W. to Power Broker, A Chapter Most Telling

Cindy and John met in 1979 at a military reception in Honolulu - while John was still married and stated this about the meeting: "She was lovely, intelligent and charming, 17 years my junior but poised and confident. I monopolized her attention the entire time, taking care to prevent anyone else from intruding on our conversation. When it came time to leave the party, I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. By the evening's end, I was in love." Source: Dan Norwicki and Bill Muller, "Arizona, the early years", AZCentral.com, 03/01/2007.

Timburg - who was mentioned in the first cited paragraph - is very fond of John McCain. He wrote a lengthy biography on the man and constantly backs him up. The only thing with Timburg though, is that he is an exceptional biography author - he writes the good and the bad - a true "objective, journalistic perspective". Here, for your reference:

Timberg, himself an Academy graduate, was White House correspondent for the Baltimore Sun during the Reagan administration; he is now deputy chief of that paper's Washington bureau. John McCain: An American Odyssey (Paperback) by Robert Timberg

Roughly half of this story is covered in McCain's own memoir, Faith of My Fathers, including McCain's early military career and an internment in a North Vietnamese POW camp that lasted nearly six years. But it's presented here from an objective, journalistic perspective (and Timberg's own stint at Annapolis informs the sections on the Naval Academy immeasurably). But there's also strong material on McCain's political career, from his first campaigns in Arizona through the dark days of his involvement in the "Keating Five" scandal of the early '90s up to his role in 1999 as a critic of American involvement in the NATO attack on Serbia (which, McCain said, wasn't strong enough).

Timberg Appreciates McCain's True Grit
Robert Timberg has written two books in the last five years about John McCain, dispelling myths about the GOP presidential hopeful and highlighting the character of an American hero.

You asked for proof regarding the statements, and then when you get proof, you insult the person who provided you what you asked for.

What you're really saying is that you don't care about the issue at hand, you just want to be combative and attack people who disagree with you. That's fine. Just be upfront and honest about it.

DON'T even begin to compare Obama with someone like Lincoln !!

Why not? There are a lot of parallels: from Illinois, served in the state legislature, elected to national office on the strength of their oratory, and only a few years later their parties' nominee for president.

T hat will really get me mad=!!

Get mad! It doesn't really bother me if you get mad. Just be sure you're getting mad for a good reason and not over something silly.

You are really misinformed if you think that Obama would in any way think about our constitution as something to be cherished

And you are really misinformed if you think that he wouldn't cherish. How about that? (Nyah nyah I can just pretend to know Obama's mind the same as you.)

Obama's stated philosophy convinces me he cherishes its ideals, along with the policies he's advocated and voted for in his 14 years in elective office. Those things might not convince you, but you haven't exactly provided a reason why you think he doesn't. You might want to consider doing so. It usually makes for a more convincing argument.

knowing about it and believing in it are 2 separate things...

Sure. I know you're entitled to your opinion. (I'm not sure I believe it though.)

Mccain proved he believed in this country as a POW for several yrs;

He didn't have much choice in the matter, did he? I mean, suppose he didn't believe in his country. Would it have changed anything? When you're a prisoner, it doesn't much matter what you believe.

Obama comes across as another angry black man--

If you say so. I can't recall ever seeing him angry. What specific incidents are you referring to?

He's the one that needs to get over himself-

Uhm, okay? What does this have to do with anything, and what do you mean "get over himself"? What does he have to "get over"?

I don't give a hoot about your precious feelings, dear. Get as mad as you want. Lincoln had less "experience" than Obama when he was elected. That's an indisputable historical fact. Lincoln was a one term Congressman and a failed Senate candidate. His one legislative accomplishment was a mealy mouthed protest at President Polk's illegal Mexican War.

Lincoln was also incredibly ambitious. You sort of have to be to win the office. He of course did a stellar job once elected.

By McCains own admission he broke under torture and cooperated with the enemy, he also said there were Americans that did not break under the same circumstances that he was exposed to in the POW camp, to me those men were the heros and believed in America. McCain broke to get it easier than his fellow Americans POWs.

The fact is if he's courting voters

That is, after all, what politicians are supposed to do. McCain is courting your vote, as well.

and he's arrogant enough and presumptious enough to think all of Hilary's supporters will fall in his corner because of some party line or because Hilary's asking us too

I doubt that. If he really thought that, he wouldn't be courting you at all, would he? Courting presupposes that he's not sure about your vote. Why put effort into someone you know will vote for you?

He has a long way go to get this voter

Indubitably.

I really doubt I'm the only one-I bet there are alot of us out there but we'll see in Nov.

I'm sure there are a lot of you. It's one of my primary concerns. That's the only reason I'm trying to so hard, really, to try to convince you. ;-)

But please don't automatically beleive the media and think ALL clinton supporters are now Obama supporters

Oh, I don't. My best friend was a Clinton supporter who is now considering McCain seriously. I know very well that not all Clinton supporters will vote for Obama, as much as I might wish they would.

nothing like that here---Don't continue to call us names sexist, angry. bitter.racist and oh ya republican comes to mind;

I haven't. I understand that some have. Some people are dicks and @!$%#s, and don't understand that to win support, you need to acknowledge the people you're talking to, their reasons for feeling the way they do, and their objections. I haven't called you names once in our exchange.

I wish I could prevent other Obama supporters from saying things that, frankly, hurt the cause. There were Clinton supporters who said some imprudent things, as well. The fact is that there will always be people who shoot of their mouth when they shouldn't. Pay attention to what Obama says, not what some of his more fervent supporters say.

Im not a Obama supporter im a life long Democrat I would have voted Democratic if Hillary had won and I am going to vote Democratic in November I ride or die with the Democratic Party I dont vote for the person I vote for the Party period. No vote splitting America in my opinion functions better when Democrat's are in power.

katlin whether Obama wins or not is really unimportant to me, my home is paid for , both my kids are grown and done with college and I make enough money to afford food, gas, and taxes but I'm voting Democratic for the sake of the young and old in this country. We as a nation can't afford to have the most vulnerable within our society dependent upon the good will of people within the Republican Party that put profits before people and principles. When homelessness and suicide is on the rise in our nation, when so many are losing their job's and their homes . I have said before that I don't care how much tax money that the democratic party spends in the United States helping Americans because the Republicans seem only be able to find money to spend to help Iraqis and on the Iraq war.

Two friends waged a spirited campaign for the highest office in the land both believed they had the best idea but it was up to the people to choose based on a system of winning states and delegates unfortunately one of them had to lose. I started off with the belief that Hillary was the best candidate and I still think that she would fight the hardest for the principles that I believe in but that doesn't mean because she is not the nominee that I can some how support McCain because what I believe and what McCain stands for and the policy that he supports and has supported are diametrically opposed to each other. But that's just me.

Okay, Katlin, now that you're actually presenting points of view rather than invective, I'll bite.

This is no longer about Clinton or Obama. It's about Obama and McCain. McCain has, just this week, denied two things that are part of the public record. He said to a reporter in New Orleans that he did not vote against Katrina aid packages, which he did twice, and he told Newsweek on Friday that he did not say the kind things about Clinton being under-appreciated by the media that we all saw in his June 3rd speech.

He has flip-flopped on more issues in the past four years than John Kerry could even think about, but the media likes him so he gets a pass. Look at his record. Torture? Came out strongly against it, but in the end caved to Bush. Campaign Finance Reform? Right now he is violating the bill that he co-sponsored and has received so much credit for. Immigration? He gets tremendous credit for bucking the party on this one, but now he says that if he was president, he would veto the bill he himself introduced.

Here's one thing I know about Obama, and I just learned it a week or so ago. Everyone knows that he went to Harvard Law school, and that he worked as a community organizer in Chicago. What is not as well known is the timeline:

1) Graduated from Columbia, went back to Chicago to work with poor people on the south side.
2) Found he couldn't accomplish as much as he wanted, got frustrated, decided to go to law school so he could be more effective in his community work
3) (and my point) After Harvard, and being the president of the Harvard Review (an incredibly prestigious honor) he could have clerked for any judge in the country, including Supreme Court Justices. Instead, HE WENT BACK TO CHICAGO, and continued his work in the community. That's when he decided to get involved in politics, so that he could be more effective in his work.

I truly believe that he wants to help people that have been forgotten in this country, in a way that even Al Gore and John Kerry couldn't. Both of those guys were from very privileged backgrounds, and had very little experience on the front lines of poverty and justice work.

I hope you can get over you anger and really look at these two candidates. I do also think that when you look back over the primary campaign you will see that many of the sexist comments about Hillary Clinton were said by the media, not by Obama or even people in his campaign.

In fact, the more you find out about John McCain, the more you will find out that he is truly a sexist, which is not surprising given his age and military background. He is on the record as saying that women pilots should not be allowed in combat because they're not as good as men. He has a 0% (that's zero, really) voting record as scored by Planned Parenthood, which doesn't just track abortion issues but all women's health issues. Obama's record with them is 100%, just like Hillary's.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your views.

Kaitlin-I have to agree with you...it's an evisceral reaction....a deep suspicion that some people have about him...and I'm one of them.... It seems suspect to me that Hillary is his mentor and then he stabs her in the back...(or his staff does) well...they use their "code words" to get things across....much like they're using "lost his bearings", "confused" to portray McCain as a doddering old fool, when he's just a flip flopper....and yes, there is a difference... The whole church thing smacks of political opportunism--he joins this church to futher his local political career, then ends it to further his national political career.... This whole VP thing is just ridiculous--he squashes its importance, but what could be more important than finding the VP since it sets the tone of his entire campaign.... Finally, I was very insulted by him when he and Hillary had their debates (including the ones where the other Democratic candidates partici[pated) he would get so frustrated, so offended when someone had the temerity to ask him to clarify or ask him a follow up question. I thought that was odd, and I was totally put off on it. He reminded, no he reminds me too much of Bush in 1999.

katlin
his good friend Rezko who bought him a house got into legal trouble--Obama's response-Not the person I know--He seems to easily turn his back on anyone when it's convenient for him=will he then decide the american people are in his way and turn his back on America =it would seem it's a matter of when not if !! This is not the person I would respect and our president -no matter how much we disagree with him should have respect of our own people.

Come on. Let's deal in facts here.

Tony Rezko is on trial for -- actually, has already been convicted of -- corruption. In that entire trial, Obama wasn't tied to any wrongdoing, on any level. Rezko did NOT buy his home for him. Rezko contributed and bundled for his campaign, and Obama has since given that money to charity.

If the Rezko situation is disconcerting to you, let it stand on its own without embellishing and trying to make it sound worse that what it really is. That costs you credibility.

The thing is Obama seems not to be trusted-Hilary was his mentor when he first went to congress=looks like that didn't work out to good for her--

Obama's mentor (who are assigned to, not chosen by, new Senators) was actually Senator Lieberman. Looks like that didn't work out too well for Obama. Obama was a strong supporter of other Senators' re-election campaigns, including Senator Clinton's, in 2006. He made many donations to Democrats that cycle.

he belonged to a church for 20 yrs. so he must have liked it there ' and dropped it like a hot potato to further his career--

I actually find his reason for leaving compelling: because although Obama signed up to be a public figure, his church did not. The press had begun to harass other church members, calling them at home, and basically acting like a bunch of paparazzi. Normal, everyday churchgoers should not have to put up with that behavior by the press, and it could have eventually led to a dangerous situation. Obama left the church so that the press would leave TUC alone to worship in peace.

he hires someone to help him find his VP and fires him 30 hrs later because of a conflict of interest didn't he know this before he hired him?

Sort of. Johnson resigned after the conflict of interest came up. Do you think Johnson should have stayed on with that conflict of interest? Are you creating a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation for Obama? Regarding the loan, since Johnson wasn't coming on to be a financial advisor, there was really no reason for Obama to vet his finances. The conflict dealt with an area that Johnson had no influence in.

his good friend Rezko who bought him a house got into legal trouble--Obama's response-Not the person I know

Ever had a friend get in serious trouble with the law? Did it seem like the person you knew?

--He seems to easily turn his back on anyone when it's convenient for him

From my perspective, you seem eager to look at every situation in the least fair light possible. I understand this is politics, but consider that it may be the case you're not giving Obama a fair shake.

he belonged to a church for 20 yrs. so he must have liked it there ' and dropped it like a hot potato to further his career

"Dropping like a hot potato" implies that Obama quit his church quickly. He stood by his church for months, which doesn't indicate hot-potato-like dropping.

By the way, there's a neat button below and to the right of the "L" key. It makes a period, which looks like this: "." and indicates the end of a sentence. They're neat things to use ;-)

I wish I could improve on this, but I can't.

You seem to think that there will not be a similar level of ship-jumping if she is on the ticket, which is frankly unproven. It's a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.

I don't think so - I think he's waiting for the animosity to diminish between the two camps, and delaying, both to avoid looking like he's not making his own decision, and because McCain still hasn't announced. I know how complicated it is, but really, the Clintons are hated by the Republicans; there are very few Democrats that felt this way before we chose sides this primary. Hillary's portrayal as a power-hungry egomaniac are total fabrications; she and Obama have, and will, worked very well together.

If they can't have a guy on the VP committee because he got some loans at a special rate, there's no way that they can have a VP whose husband has raised millions of dollars for his Presidential Library from some of the most unsavory characters on the planet.

To her continuing frustration, Bill Clinton has negatively impacted her presidential aspirations, and now I believe he's made it impossible for them to name her vice president.

Even if they got over that, he would make it very crowded in the White House.

I agree Loose Cannon....this vp thing for Hillary is a no-win for anyone involved. I still think she has her sights set on passing some major legislation in Congress, or she's looking for a seat on the Supreme Court. Both of them know her being a VP won't benefit either one of them...still I think they're testing the waters/ waiting for everyone's ardor to cool down.

In response to the contributions to the baseless slander against the Clintons... let's leave that to the Ken Starr Republicans. Regardless of what you think would be best, Democrats owe the Clintons a huge amount of respect.

I would be very happy to see her on the Supreme Court.

Both Clintons do deserve a huge amount of respect. I had a picture of myself with Bill as my facebook profile picture for about a month, and I would have supported either Obama or Clinton wholeheartedly, although I supported Obama first. However, that respect does not need to manifest itself through a vice-presidential pick.

What if Obama put Clinton on his VP selection committee, so his pick would have her seal of approval?

No thanks, not interested in those two having a part in my country's government in the future. The Clintons are the definition of financial corruption. They have a lot of dazzle and charm, without it they wouldn't bounce back so hard from scandals.

Sounds like you've been reading too much Ken Starr material.

Kim-436
Sounds like you've been reading too much Ken Starr material.

I've been reading about Clinton's court appearance scheduled for November, amongst other things.

The portrayal of the Clintons really isn't fair; especially not to Hillary. She has been a strong advocate for the issues that concern her for a REALLY long time - and she doesn't budge on them - she was shot down on universal healthcare for being "un-first-lady-like," somehow got flack for her husband cheating on her, which still bewilders me..

Regardless, I think Barack Obama is going to do several things. First, I think he'll announce his VP, but also announce who he plans to put on his cabinet in a more prominent way - I think it'll be more "Dream Team" than "Dream Ticket," and Hillary Clinton will be there somewhere. I think VP, but I also think John Edwards is likely for Attorney General, and Wes Clark for Secretary of State. The emphasis of the VP needing to be a military person is odd, considering the Secretary of State is more involved. John Edwards and Wes Clark are influential, and would campaign a whole lot as well.

I don't think this is a 50/50 split between Democrats and Republicans anymore. Obama brought in the part of the country that Democrats have been trying to get to the polls for a really long time. The Republicans are fighting a losing battle this time, and what's most important is that the right people are in the right positions. America, for the most part, has finally woken up.

She has been a strong advocate for the issues that concern her for a REALLY long time

Yes, she has strongly advocated for her own elevation to power for some time now. We know that.

Wow, that's what they say about every female CEO in our country, too. I guess every woman that gets promoted is just trying to overthrow the good ol' boys. Way to go.

She's given up high-pay jobs for the opportunity to fight for healthcare and childrens' rights many times - so what if she's trying to climb to the top, to a job she is more than qualified for, so she can really make some changes, for the better, in this world.

The Kennedy's were raised to take care of people less fortunate than themselves, you could see the passion to help the less fortunate in all of the Kennedy's in fact they cared so much that they were killed to keep them from doing more than they did ( John & Robert ) and despite all the embarrassment and harassment heaped on him Ted managed to overcome all of it to keep faith with his brothers and become the Lion of the Senate and help less fortunate people for more than 40 years, that takes passion and commitment.

What you don't get is that one of those two is going to be the next president. (By the way, let everyone you know know that, in some states, write-in votes for a member of a national party go to the nominated candidate; you could be inadvertently voting for Obama.)

What it comes down to, really, is that you can't/won't accept that your candidate didn't win the nomination. I can understand that; it's only been a little over a week.

But if you had more than a superficial reason to vote for Clinton, like her policies, for instance, then there's a reason for you to look into the candidacies of both Obama and McCain. Because, no matter what, Hillary Clinton is not going to be the president. So if the issues matter (health care, national security, the environment, the economy, Iraq, women's rights, etc.), then read up on them and find out who will do the most good for the country, and get behind them.

There are some serious problems facing the country, and serious people are needed to help them get solved. If you're writing in votes for a candidate that you know won't win, then you're not being serious about what's going on. You have to understand that. Don't let your resentment over a less than ideal situation cause you to ignore those problems.

Of course, every voter has the right to choose for him or herself. But I believe that all rights come with responsibilities. Take your responsibility seriously.

Voting for someone based on his/her qualifications for the job is hardly superficial. If we were voting on policy only, many of you could be President.

What qualifications does John McCain have?

And are those qualifications so weighty that it overrides the fact that his policies are the opposite of everything that HRC stood for?

Like I said before, I understand feeling like Obama can't get it done. That's one thing. But to say "I'm going to vote for a person who's policies I don't agree with because he has experience" is kind of backwards, in my lowly opinion.

It's like the CEO of a business deciding to hire a manager who has years of experience, but the manager doesn't believe in the same principles that the CEO does, and he's going to run the company in a way that is opposite of the way the CEO wants him to run it. In fact, his track record - his experience - is proof that he's not on the same page with the CEO.

Instead, a good CEO would hire a manager, even one with less experience, who is going to run the company in a way that coincides with the CEO's vision. It would be especially helpful if that manager is promising to surround himself with individuals who have qualifications that make up for what he lacks.

I'm just still really puzzled about how someone could provide support - whether directly or indirectly - for a candidate who's policies they don't agree with. I know that there are other things that come into play, but if you supported HRC, John McCain is the opposite of what she stood for.

gar-284741
My God the holier than thou hypocrites are coming out of the woodwork anonymously. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones The wildest colts can make he best horses.

Wait, what?

arcane when you dont know what to say they say anything

get off the marriage thing -it's really none of your business and I know you know nothing about what happened in their marriage-as I do not know or judge their marriage. Unless of course you are bassing you voting decision on who appears to have a good marriage--How utterly ridculous !!!

The GOP has declared Obama's wife to be fair game for this campaign season. McCain has remained silent on that call.

Sauce for the goose dear, sauce for the goose.

katlin

get off the marriage thing -it's really none of your business and I know you know nothing about what happened in their marriage-as I do not know or judge their marriage. Unless of course you are bassing you voting decision on who appears to have a good marriage--How utterly ridculous !!!

McCain admitted to sleeping around with other women, that's the thing.

I do not think that the state of someone's marriage or what happens in their personal relationship is fair game- I think it should be off limits and that goes for the mccain's obamas and the clintons. Michelle Obama , and Cindy Mccain are not off limits when referring to their comments made in public-but their relationships inside their family should remain private-ususally it's not true anyway and only serves to bash someone -that is not productive and our nation has alot more pressing issues to be discussed.

I believe an individual's family values is very important in my choice. Especially when a candidate [McCain] is stating that he is against gay marriage because we need to preserve what marriage currently stands for. -cough- Really, McCain?

Cheating on one's wife behind her back shows an essential dishonesty. Do you want a dishonest President?