I hope Debra is happy wiith the erosion of health care, the privatization of social security, a war with Iran (and possibly Russia), and the elmination of abortion rights.

Not if the Congress is Democratic. Pelosi + Obama are pretty far to the left of where the country is. But a split in control with a president who was genuinely able to be bipartisan might work well.

Thanks Eve, I saw this on the McCain news network, a.k.a. CNN's American morning.

Can anybody imagine a Barack Obama delegate coming out and endorsing the Republican John McCain?

Of course not, so why are Clinton's people working clandestinely behind the scenes to bring down Barack Obama, and why are they now working openly in front of the camera to stop the the American people from taking back our country?

The answer is simple, Hillary Clinton is a traitor to the Democratic Party and the people of the United States, she is part and parcel of the corporate machine that relies upon Republicans and Democrats like Clinton to dismantle the rights of the American people in the hopes of rendering every US citizen a slave within our own country.

They are not our allies, they are enemies who have already stuck a knife in our back, while at the same time smiling and telling us that it's not really a knife in our back that we feel, no, it's just their interpretation of the hand of friendship and unity. There is no unity in this treachery, and they will not stop until they have been stamped out utterly and unceremoniously booted from the Democratic Party, like the traitorous dogs that they are.

Send them back to stand with their true I allies the filthy Republicans, otherwise democracy and the Republic will surely be lost.

It absolutely stuns me that anyone can make this switch. It tells me that they are so small minded that their own and the country's best interests are not the reason they vote, but instead their emotions rule their lives. Any rational policy examination shows McCain is nearly the exact opposite of HRC. I wish we could excommunicate Bartoshevich (she's not at the convention anymore...oops Debbie?)

HRC needs to get up and forcefully say that a vote for McCain is a vote against everything she is fighting for, and a vote against her.

I learned a long time ago that people make political choices on criteria that are utterly unfathomable and irrational.  My old man switched from Bobby Kennedy to George Wallance in '68, after Kennedy was shot.  So I guess someone who calls themselves a "proud Hillary Clinton Democrat" can plump for John McCain.  

She wouldn't want to run for delegate in my caucus ever again though.

I can't wait until the MSM shows have this lady on one panel and a Hillary delegate who's voting Obama in the other panel having a "debate" that portrays each as the figurehead of an equally valid and numerous movement.

Then again I was swearing at my radio this morning when I heard an "Independent voter" (read ignorant voter) talking about how she didn't know enough about Barack Obama so maybe I'm atypical after all...

Yeah, it's interesting.  Mrs. Clinton sets the cause of women forward by twenty years, and these women - "hell hath no fury" and all that - set it back five hundred years.

Let me be clear: it's one thing if she identifies a policy position that McCain and Mrs. Clinton shared, and then says Obama is not on.  But - to go from one to the other for personal pique or because of a sense of grievance - now that, is a set back.

Eos: you've been pushing that line, and you have not once demonstrated on what issues - issueS - Mrs. Clinton and Obama are so far as apart as to make the "Pelosi-Obama" administration such a danger.  Either you are a Republican plant, or your arguments are phony.  In any event, you mentioned in an earlier post that personalities and not policies drive you, so please drop the pretense.

Judgment and experience.  If this is what this woman values, how are we to understand her own apparent lack of judgment, and her obvious failure to learn from experience?  Having just witnessed 8 years of Bush, how can anyone support four more years?  To praise experience and then ignore the lessons of the past 8 years is simply incoherent.  

As for judgment, are we really all Georgians now?  Are we really going to relieve higher gas prices by drilling for oil up and down our coast? Nobody except John McCain is interested in staying in Iraq - even the Bush administration is ready to move on - yet we hear these claims about judgment. If this lady really cares about experience and judgment, how does one explain her participation in a McCain political ad?  

This woman has forgotten what Hillary's campaign was supposed to be about - just like Hillary in the final days of her failed campaign, this woman's focus has become narcissistic -- for her, it is all about me, me, me.  For this woman, ego trumps all.

I hope she enjoys her fifteen minutes of fame - when she recovers her judgment, maybe she will reflect on the experience and realize she has sold out every policy position Hillary claimed to stand for.  Fortunately, very few of Hillary's supporters are as dim-witted as this woman.    

Obama should use that "It's okay (really!)" part and exploit the shit out of it, cross-cutting to imagery of foreclosed homes, flag-draped coffins, etc, while it repeats her quip.  

dylan: on the one hand, I believe the poseur (or is it the poseuse?), having got her 15 seconds of fame, should be allowed to remain in obscurity forever.  But then I see Eos's posts, and I realise that no amount of being bashed over the head with reality is enough.

What I want to know is this, though: why do supporters of Mrs. Clinton are so good at peddling Republican speaking points?  Will Mrs. Clinton reject and denounce these?

"it's one thing if she identifies a policy position that McCain and Mrs. Clinton shared, and then says Obama is not on.  But - to go from one to the other for personal pique or because of a sense of grievance - now that, is a set back."

--Agreed, icarusr. But it would be virtually impossible to identify a position of McCain's aside from staying in Iraq, cutting taxes, eliminating choice, and drilling everywhere. This is what attracts Hillary voters?

Why on earth should I care at all what this dunce has to say about anything?  As everyone else has already said, if her understanding of politics is so limited that she would jump from Hillary to Mccain, then her understanding of politics is of no actual value.

PropJoe: McCain is firmly anti-choice, considers Roe to be bad law, and has stated that he would appoint judges in the same mold as Scalia and Clarence Thomas.  When Eos and this woman talk about a "moderate" voice in the White House, this is what they are referring to.  And, of course, Mrs. Clinton, being a moderate methodist, is as vehemently anti-abortion as John McCain, isn't she?

Oh yeah - McCain voted against torture and waterboarding America's enemies before he voted in favour of these interrogation methods.  There is yet another clear McCain position.  Mrs. Clinton, a hawk on security matters, presumably supports this moderate McCain position, as against the dangerous ACLU-driven radical leftist position of Obama.

MCCAIN TRIES THE 'CHICKEN PRANK'.... For the second time in two days, the McCain campaign has unveiled a television ad intended to drive a wedge between Hillary Clinton's supporters and the candidate Hillary Clinton endorses and agrees with. In the..

If one looks hard enough, one can find one or two voters willing to support any premise, no matter how wacky.  This ad is a patronizing insult to the intelligence of women voters in general and Hilllary's supporters in particular. How stupid does the McCain campaign believe women are?

www.womenforbarackobama.com/McCain.html

The media and its need/tendency to go for idiosyncratic figures with weird stories rather than more representative voices are also partly to blame.  If someone can turn themselves into a really squeaky wheel, then they'll get some media oiling.  Hm . . . I wonder if there's a disappointed Huckabee staffer out there somewhere who's decided to vote for Obama . . .

'But a split in control with a president who was genuinely able to be bipartisan might work well"

It might! But first you have to find a bipartisan candidate for the Republican party.

"Pelosi + Obama are pretty far to the left of where the country is."

According to you and that piece of crap called the National Journal, maybe. There is no legitimate metric in America that supports this notion.

"it's one thing if she identifies a policy position that McCain and Mrs. Clinton shared, and then says Obama is not on."

Well, icarusr, in all fairness she did state that she was looking for "experience" and "judgement". These are, per se, decent criteria.

waynejm, I think it its pretty safe to say, at this point, that a keystone of Conservative/Rovian politics is to play the electorate for the idiots they are; combine that with a penchant for rationalization, as opposed to reasoning, and you have Bush '00, Bush '04 and McCain '08. Hopefully this time around the electorate will wise up.

GS: "judgement", then, to support the Iraq war (there is one policy position)?

I get your point about experience, but I still don't understand.  Experience is valuable when the person having experience shares your values, so you want them elected so that they can advance those values.  Cheney has "experience"; would this woman vote for him on that basis alone?  Absent policy agreement, "experience" is simply another word for "a woman scorned".

Am I on the same TNR where many Obama supporters swore they would never vote for Hillary if she won?  It sure *seemed* like it was about 40% of them.  

Anyway, what Obama has to be careful of is McCain (or backstabbing Clintonites) arguing this: the Democrats had a choice between Clintonism -- a centrist, fiscally responsible path which the left hated, or Barney Frank's economics (never hurts to throw in a little homophobia).   They made their choice and lots of Reagan Democrats who are concerned about our economy remember what those policies did under Jimmy Carter.

This is why you can't just shove the Clintons off the stage in Denver, no matter how much Crowley, Chait, Peretz and their ilk despise them.  

Yeah, forget the three national polls today that estimate there are now millions (that's plural, ick) of Hillary voters who have shifted to McCain in the last week alone (11% of the Hillary voters, per CNN poll out today-- enough to enable McCain to close the gap w BHO entirely in the last week). Per Gallup, the total number, including those who shifted before last week, is now up to 30% of Hillary voters who will either vote for McC or sit the election out entirely.

So let's see, 11% x 18m = ~2m in the last week alone; 30% x 18m = >5m total. Which TNR's scribes tell us is comparable to 20 chickens let loose by schoolkids. Right.

The prospect of Obama losing an election that should be in the bag for our party is mind-boggling, sure. But really, denial and bloggerish snark only makes the Obama partisans look foolish. The candidate is the problem.

And TNR: could you please give us some fact-based, objective, intelligent reporting instead of this endless stream of partisan smirks 'n sneers?

Honestly, Tep, you're pretty wise, but I think you're about the last person to take TNR to task for "sneering"

It's a good story. And it does directly relate to the McCain attempt to divide the Democrats. From TNR's Eve Fairbanks via Steve Benen: I almost feel like a dupe writing about the second pro-Hillary ad McCain released today at...

Well, tep.  I'm not feeling particularly conciliatory this morning, so I'll just blurt out what I'm thinking when I read your post.

Yes, there may be a great many people who shifted from Clinton to McCain.  There is a word for people like that: idiots.  

tep - Let's see how those numbers hold up past the conventions.  And about those Hillary-to-McCain defectors - do the polls say what percentage represents activist women angry at Obama for denying them the first-ever female president, versus white working class voters who need to be won over by Obama before November?  I think that's doable.

I suspect that it's mostly the latter and very few of the former.  A problem, no doubt, but a different issue than the one raised by the ad.

Despite the hoopla, the Denver convention has two pretty conventional goals:  to unite the party and to persuade independents. The first order of business, because of the primary campaign's length and intensity, has to be a paramount, but given the bent of the country right now, that effort should persuade a lot of independents. The Republican brand is undeniably tarnishe. It is clear that  McCain, on substance, has very little to offer women who are aggrieved by Hillary's failure to win. McCain is anti-choice, opposed to the expansion of health care, has no coherent ideas about education, pretends to be for the environment while proposing immediate drilling everywhere, and wants a Supreme Court that would overturn Rowe and gut any pro-labor legislation. The list differentiating McCain from left-leaning people is very long.

There is no reason for a somewhat liberal person (and this is the clear majority in America right now) to support McCain. The candidate (Obama) that PUMAs deride over and over again is pretty close to Hillary on all issues. They seem to think that McCain's  bluster on foreign policy is sensible, but it's not. That case needs to be made clearly and succinctly, over and over again, this week. Again: this is doable when people let the heat recede and look at the facts as they are. And McCain's domestic priorities are so beyond the pale that a simple listing of the should persuade people.

Obama is not the problem. It's the pain of a long, divisive campaign that has obscured just how close Hillary and Obama are on most issues. In a rational universe, the reminders should resonate. We shall see.

First, apart from the war, Obama is by all accounts more "centrist" that Hillary (see, e.g., health care plans, off shore drilling, FISA).  The idea that Obama is some deep dyed lefty is just ridiculous, as is the idea that Hillary Clinton would have led a more bipartisan administration.  Get a life, Eos.

Second, I've see the same polls that Tep has.  Most of them (e.g. today's Rasmussen, which leans Republican) have Obama up by 2 to five points.  Some bump caused by Hillary-pique in Gallup (another Republican leaning poll) is hardly a cause for panic (or, in the case of naysayers like Tep, delight).  Just this week the Politico electoral map, based on RCP numbers, shifted back from a McCain victory to an Obama victory.

Third, I stand by my earlier prediction, which is that neither Obama nor McCain will get the customary 5-6 point average bounce this week or next.  Times have changed, the same internet that allows McCain to do this allows Obama to do the same, the conventions are too close together, and there is overall a very odd political dynamic to this year.  By mid-September, Obama will lead McCain by an average of three percentage points.  This will go up and down, due to debates, "gaffes", etc., but barring a "game-changer" (which is almost never something that talking heads and party flacks herald as a "game changer"), Obama will win this election by about three percentage points.  Hardly a landslide, but better than virtually every other Democratic candidate has done since WWII except LBJ in 64 and Bill Clinton seeking re-election.

Fourth, this is a blog, for heaven's sake.  Those seeking in-depth discussion of "the issues" should read the magazine.

It's also an utter and groundless fantasy to assume against all the evidence that Hillary, if she had won the nomination, would be sailing ahead toward clear waters now.  If she had won, the Republicans would have loosed an artillery barage of hostility and hatred against her and Bill that would make the current anti-Obama campaign look like a light rap on the knuckles.  It's telling, in fact, that Hillary appears to be the best argument McCain has at the moment -- the Dems are the only party that matter, it seems.

I'm kind of astonished that some bright folks around here don't seem to grasp that basic and not at all obscure fact.

Maybe we can all agree that this campaign has been bad for our party and for TNR. Everything seems to have been lowered by it. The TNR blogs hit new lows every day, not only in the name-calling but for the TNR journalists' content itself. Now TNR's intrepid reporter in Denver is comparing the Hillary voters to chickens running amok in a schoolgirl prank.

You guys blame the Clintons; I blame the nomination of yet another lightweight Dukakis-Kerry type, a guy from nowhere who's obviously not ready for the WH. Maybe you're right, maybe I am, maybe the truth's somewhere in between, of maybe we're both wrong. Whatever, this campaign can't end soon enough.  

Ironyroad is right about no reason to assume HRC would be sailing to the Presidency

(Ironically, Joe Biden probably would be, unless an anti-war third party challenge emerged to siphon votes).

But that aside: what does it hurt the Obama people to acknowledge, if nothing else, there was some very noticeable and at times misogynist bias in the media coverage during the primary?  Remember how you felt when you first discovered Fox News and learned that it was the prime news source for many people?  That's a bit how HRC supporters (and some of us non-supporters) feel about MSNBC.  Olbermann is the Sean Hannity of the left -- his selective self-righteous outrage (often running roughshod over facts) can send anyone not already committed over the edge.  

Again, the Clinton administration is the only example of Democratic white house rule for nearly 3 decades.  And its a period that most voters, particularly blue collar voters, remember fondly.  Kick that to the curb at your own peril.  

Aaron, while I agree that it's past time for everyone to get on board with Obama, it's also time to let go of the "Clinton people still trying to screw things up."  There are so few of those that they won't make any difference.  Just let them go and donate to Obama.  Or, if you have to, point and laugh at the poor fools.  

tep,

If you're still there, please email me at my comcast address. Very important. Thanks. Ken

Tep,

At this point in the campaign, degrading the candidate of "your party" makes you seem like less of a strategist and more of a slovenly cynicist.  What exactly do you propose?  If I had a diem for every post you make that takes a McCainesque swipe at Obama ("that Stonybrook Farms logo..."), then I could afford a mortgage.  What exactly is your edge?

tep, the only thing I blame the Clinton's for is running the primary until June.  And the reason we all know it shouldn't have been run that long is that her campaign is $30million in debt.  Even Mitt Romney, who could afford to pay for that kind of campaign, knew that when you're not getting the kind of money necessary to run a campaign, it means that people aren't backing you enough, and it's time to get out.  She seems to have missed that.

Otherwise, I don't think this campaign has been bad at all.  It certainly hasn't been the nastiest campaign by far, even when there has been the opportunities with a black man and a woman running.  I suspect we'll see more late when the Republicans get desperate, but it's still not as bad as Jefferson being accused of allowing orgies in the streets.  I would like for this campaign to be over, only because I am ready for a Democratic president to be leading the country again.

lymon, I don't think any of us forget what the Clinton years were like.  Heck, while it may be a correlation and not a causation, the fact that balancing the budget corresponded with rising incomes during the Clinton years is about the only thing that will make the tough choices we make over the next few years even somewhat approachable.  My personal opinion is that Obama was the best candidate to continue Bill's hope.

Possibly the only bad thing about blogs, on TNR and elsewhere, is that we now see more commentary and reactions in a week than we would have seen all election cycle in prior presidential years.  It's something we'll have to get used to, or we'll have to develop some etiquette for it.  

But my goal this election cycle has been to get a Democrat in the White House, and if Clinton's name had been in that spot in November, I would have proudly voted for her.  Before I learned about Obama, Clinton was the only name I was even going to consider.

I am one of the people who said he wouldn't vote for Hillary, and the only major reason I would have considered doing it was the balance on the Supreme Court. At that time I believed McCain would run as a Conservative Democrat, but the demon that used to possess Cheney has now occupied McCain, so I can't see a way I would vote for McCain in any case. I am a swing voter, I agree with Republicans on Nat. security and FP (I supported the war and the surge) and with Dems on health care and the environment. I can see how some people can make such a decision. Not everyone is a partisan Dem or Republican. There are middle of the road people. This woman just seems like a ninny to me though.

Ken - sent now to yr comcast address. pls use my gmail address when you reply

t

dylan - maybe I'm just getting old, but I've seen this movie so many times before, and I know how it ends. Hate Nixon? Take a gamble on an untested unknown peanut farmer. Watch him fail.

Hate Reagan? Vote for an empty suit from MA. Hate Bush? Vote for a pompous blowhard who's achieved nothing in his decades in the Senate. Hate Bush even more four years later? Vote for an untested unknown etc

Why do we do this to ourselves? What's wrong with finding and elevating someone who really knows something about China or Russia or-- heaven forfend-- both? As opposed to a former baseball club owner or former "community organizer"?

Tep- I guess I think you have a lot of reason to be happy and to pull for Obama, given that an Obama election makes the odds of a Biden presidency very very high.

Draft Debra Bartoshevich!

Not for public office, but to serve in Iraq for part of the 100-year occupation she wants to enable.

"Experience is valuable when the person having experience shares your values"

I was just pointing out that she *did* mention her criteria. I think you're absolutely right, though; thinking the criteria through should illuminate the glaring problem with voting for McCain, but it is SOP for Republicans to try to play the electorate for fools.

lymon, I'll confess to intending to vote for McCain at one point early on; but as he started to sew up his primary, and switch gears into the general election, he started flopping on the stances he took which earned him my respect since '00; combined with the change in the tone of Hillary's campaign towards the end, when she obviously figured out that she needed to spend more time making a case for herself, and less time making a case against Obama, I am once again a happy democrat with two solid choices for nominee. Oddly, I sort of appreciate the case she made against Obama and did it fervently, because forcing him to address all these questions early has effectively defanged the Republican best attacks for the GE.

Tep,

I understand where you are coming from, but I am not sure what you are suggesting.  I think the cynicism prevails over the purpose.  Are you suggesting that they repackage Obama?  It won't win votes to dispense of the candidate at this point (won't look good for DEMs), so it's one of those situations where you work with what you have.  And even that perspective is diminutive.  I think that Obama appeals to a large swath of citizens who, regardless of age of nationaliy, have never voted before, and the DEMs are finally reaching out to this group of untouched voting potential.  Any other candidate they floated could not evoke the same level of enthusiam, and I believe that by chosing Obama, the DEMs are tending to their garden for the next decades.  After all, the only way the GOP wins is when people don't go out and vote--their platforms are vastly unpopular.

Right, tep.  What those anti-Obama Hillary supporters really care about is experience.  That's why they're so upset over Obama's choice of an inexperienced lightweight like Biden over someone with real f-p chops like Hillary.

Really, give it a rest.  We get it; you wanted Biden at the top.  I wanted Biden at the top, too, but I don't feel the need to relentlessly complain about the fact that he never had a chance this year (for what it's worth, I thought he should have run in '04, when there weren't any well-known candidates running).  Back in reality, the 3 Democratic choices who could raise enough money to compete were Hillary, Obama, and Edwards.  Point to a non-flawed candidate in that group, or someone with the kind of f-p experience you're looking for.

Here's why Debra the Ditz is like one of the chickens in the prank: most of the people who supported Clinton are loyal dems, who will probably vote for Obama. They did a poll of delegates, and this surely includes some of the more partisan supporters of Sen. Clinton:

www.nytimes.com/.../25delegatesweb.html

More than half of the delegates that Mrs. Clinton won in the primaries now say they are enthusiastic supporters of Mr. Obama, and they also believe he will win the presidential election in November, the poll found. Three in 10 say they support Mr. Obama but have reservations about him or they support him only because he is the party’s nominee. Five percent say they do not support him yet.

dylan - maybe you're right, but note that the polls that have broken out the age cohorts are also showing a drop in support for BHO from * young * voters. Per Zogby Obama until recently was leading by s.t. like 20 points; now his lead with them has been cut in half.

As to the great turnout hope, well, re young voters I've been hearing this prediction about a children's brigade/cavalry to the rescue more times than I care to remember, and every time, the kids' cavalry doesnt' show. Even at his highest, which IIRC was s.t. like 40% for Kerry in 2004, it still doesn't make a difference, because when you have higher than average turnout for one group, all the other groups turn out in higher %s as well. So in 2004, <30 turnout rose, and so did turnout for all the other age groups, eg s.t. like 70% for the over-60 cohort. Then there's the persistent problem of a shrinking youth base to draw from every four years as the population ages.

But hey, maybe you're right, I don't know. I just hear it every year and this group always, always underperforms.

Alan - you're right, I should give it a rest. Now the numbers are speaking for themselves:  we have a major problem with this candidate, and the problem goes way beyond this or that disaffected demographic. What to do? I have no idea. It's pretty damned late in the game now, isn't it?

Tep,

It isn't just young people--whose motives I wouldn't underestimate or compare to previous years' youths--but also blacks and those of foreign descent.  Obama has obvious appeal to black voters, and Republicans have never been this outspoken in their detest of immigrants and foreigners.  What, besides your deference to comparisons of this election to Bush v. Kerry and Carter v. Reagan, makes you presume that this election will bring the same levels of turnout per demographic?  I don't think you can make those comparisons this year.  

" we have a major problem with this candidate, and the problem goes way beyond this or that disaffected demographic."

Obama needs full support from the Hillary hard-liners; if the country is evenly divided Rep/Dem, and the Dems are split 50/50, if 25% of Hillary's supporters go republican, split the ticket, or stay home, that is a 12pt loss for obama, plus McCain gains whatever cross-over votes. This is in addition to the 10% of Democrats that don't believe in interracial voting. I'd say the problem is EXACTLY this or that disaffected demographic.

The funny thing is that Hardball hosted 2 talking heads last week: one from PUMA, the other from some group I'd never heard of and can't remember. Apparently, neither of these groups is concerned with Obama's qualifications; they're concerned because Obama "cheated", and they're determined to make the party pay the price in November if Hillary isn't on top of the ticket. End of story.

It's OK, tep, Hillary supporters also said that the youth vote wouldn't turn out on a cold day in early January in Iowa. I'm thrilled that you're still believing things you believed eight months ago. That's consistency. Of course, you're also demonstrating the limit of perceiving consistency as a virtue...

It's the opposite of tep's former zealous support of Joe Biden: He was so excited that he made blog comments about him. And now that Biden has a chance at being VP and the most powerful foreign policy adviser on the planet, tep is thrilled to once again show his support by... making blog comments. The virtue of being open to changing your mind also has limits and once again, the limits are demonstrated by Deconstructing tep's Blog Comments*.

This woman supported Hillary and now backs McCain -- to everyone who made that choice: You're the one with a messianic devotion to a candidate. If your principles are so poorly defined as to be able to turn 180 degrees on every conceivable issue, then you probably don't know much about the issues at all.  See HillaryIs44 for further analysis of the Debras and teps of politics.

*(Ages four and up).

I keep coming back to this, but  don't understand how tep can make the change from "it's the economy, stupid!" to "foreign policy or nothing!" without thinking that someone might notice.  Where is the response to the major problems of our era in John McCain -- energy, health etc.  I've asked this before and all I got was directions to his campaign web site, which has a lot of woolly language about stuff that fails to convince.

Secondly, I too like Biden but in contrast to tep I can celebrate the correct decision that Obama made -- presumably seeing the same things in Biden as he did.  However, the reason Biden isn't head of the ticket is that he came in around No. 9 in the comb-out in Iowa and NH -- in some ways it's as simple as that.  That's how the system works.

Obama-Biden represent an attempt to get at the issues that will be crucial for America and the world for the first part of the 21st century.  McCain plus whoever represent a return ticket to the 20th century -- which can only end in frustration and self-delusion.

Debra is putting country of party.

That's what George Washington hoped every citizen would do.

That's called patriotism.  Apparently an alien concept to many here.

The great misconception I often see on display here is that people vote for a president primarily on issues.

I believe that assumption is absolutely wrong.  Voters vote for president on gut and on feelings.  And most importantly on trust.  

Which guy do they trust to be president.  Which guy can they truly imagine as president.

It may surprise some of you here who are regulars and know that I am a fairly consistent Rightist, that I never voted for Richard Nixon, an d in fact voted against him at both opportunities in '68 and '72.

This was based only marginally on my political attitudes at the time and mainly because I thought he was a man of bad character and peculiar personality.

I didn't vote for McGovern, though.  I voted for an obscure 3rd party candidate I can no longer remember-- basically an opt out or protest.

My big point is, it's ridiculous to rail about planks and policy when it comes to the presidency.  Sometimes it matters, mainly with single-issue voters.

I think, for most people, most of the time, policies and planks are a tertiary consideration.

And that's not necessarily stupid, if you consider how often presidents do not pay much attention to their policies and planks after they're elected.

TYPO CORRECTO

Debra is putting country ahead of party.

"Debra is putting country of party.

That's what George Washington hoped every citizen would do.

That's called patriotism.  Apparently an alien concept to many here."

Then what the hell was Debra doing when she supported Hillary?  She switched to a candidate diametrically opposed to Hillary on policy issues.  If this was about putting country ahead of party, and she really did want tte country to go in the direction that McCain wants to take it, she should never should have been supporting Hillary in the first place.

Yes, Chan.  I don't know how I could have missed it, but Debra is the model citizen.  

By casting aside her commitment to Clinton's support of health care reform, social security, women's rights, and an end to the war in Iraq, Debra is the very model of an informed and engaged citizen making intelligent choices for the good of the country -- and not, as I initially thought, an emplty-headed twit whose political actvities are the equivalent of a high school class president election.

The past 8 years have made one thing clear -- lots of Americans are poorly informed and not terribly engaged.  Debra fits right in.  I doubt George Wahington would be pleased.

Neil

Hillary supporters and chickens are also alike in that they both have breasts?

chan- I think you're correct that most people don't choose who to vote for based on the issues or some sort of cost/benefit analysis.  They go on gut feeling ... as you put it "Which guy can they truly imagine as president."   That's just human nature.  But it doesn't make it a good thing!   People's guts often lead them astray.

So, Debra may be typical, but I don't think we need to hold her up as an example of patriotism merely because she's eschewing rational analysis.

Channie - C'mon, admit it.  You voted for Wallace in '68 and '72.

ratner, I dunno about that -- for the past eight years to be "patriotic" was to completely eschew rationality.

Eve - ok, that's a little clearer (I think). Anyway, sounds like it was a good prank. I'll quite before i end up with egg on my face.

Thanks,

T

waynejm, I'm a Rightist.  Wallace was a Regionalist and a Segregationist.  Who eventually recanted and won the suport of blacks for another term as governor of Alabama.

To several above, it is not a paradox for someone to vote for a candidate with whom they may disagree on many issues if they simply feel that person is better qualified and more trustworthy to be president.

Presidents are most important for how they handle the Ship of State in its relations with other nations.  Health care, abortion, and all the rest, are important issues.  But, not the existential issue that our foreign policies are.

It is perfectly consistent to think that McCain is a more trustworthy contender for the nation's (really, the world's) highest office than a man who was unknown to most Americns seven months ago, and who has only been in national office 3+ years.  

Voting for Obama may be the right vote, but is a nearly unprecedented leap of faith in historic terms.  

You have to go back to Wendell Wilkie to find a presidential nominee with less experience in national office.   And he had nevertheless been prominent on the national scene for two decades.

purcellneil, I would also remind you that Biden himself gave McCain close to a ringing endorsement.  And Hillary said he was qualified to be Commander in Chief and that Obama isn't.

This statement was made only a few months ago.  What has Obama learned since March or April that now makes him fit to be C-I-C?

I cannot think of a precedent for candidates of the same party saying that one of the major contenders was not only less right for the office then themselves, but "unqualified".

That is a profoundly major criticism levled by Hillary against Obama.

Profoundly major criticisms are only as profound as the authority of their speaker.  I don't know exactly what Hillary Clinton's qualifications were to declare herself so qualified for the presidency and an opponent in the primaries not.  Indeed, it might be thought by a person of no doubt malicious intent that the particularly awkward position she was in  -- losing delegates to Obama and watching her neat little wrap-it-up-on-Super-Tuesday plan crumble in her hands -- led her to utter that and similar "profoundly major criticisms.'  Just a thought.

Oh, my Lord!!! The idiot didn't even realize that McCain was pro-life. What a dummy!!

www.time-blog.com/.../from_the_rnc_podium_mccain_doe.html

Channie,

I know you're serious so I'll point out to you that the comments you refer to were made by Obama's opponents in a desperate and unsuccessful effort to sell an argument that McCain will now try to make - equally unsuccessfully.  You might want to consider how many times McCain lauded Bush as Commander in Chief over the past 5 years - yes, our least successful Commander in Chief in history.  For all anyone can tell, McCain would be like Bush on steroids -- does anyone really want that?  Bomb bomb Iran, indeed!

This line of attack is seen by reasonable Americans as without merit, and though I don't blame you for trying, I am laughing out loud.

Neil

Mice: and Tammy was upset at me for my admittedly intemperate but mostly colourful language.  This is the kind of idiot the PUMAs should be worried about.  Any way, there's pawlowski  on the other thread saying that it's OK, the Senate will block McCain's choices.  Wow.

purcellneil wrote, "...You might want to consider how many times McCain lauded Bush as Commander in Chief over the past 5 years - yes, our least successful Commander in Chief in history."

I'd say Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and by inheritance, Gerald Ford rank as our least successful CICs.  50,000 killed.  Nothing gained.  Abject retreat.  Millions more killed and imprisoned by Communists.  

Korea, fought to a stalemate with the loss of nearly 50,000 Americans killed doesn't look like a big CIC success story either.  Although, in fairness, the stalemate created one of the world's two perfect laboratories to show the difference between Communism and Democratic Capitalism.

purcellneil writes, "...the comments you refer to were made by Obama's opponents in a desperate and unsuccessful effort to sell an argument that McCain will now try to make - equally unsuccessfully. "

Neil, it is almost unprecedented in primaries (well, at least on the Republican side) for candidates to declare an opponent essentially unqualified to be president.  Or, at least unqualified to be Commander in Chief, the most important role of a president.

That you don't notice how amazing this is, is emblematic of the ahistorical nature of Democratic voters today.  There is major amnesia among Dems about our history and its significance to them.

Justr what you'd expect from self-involved people.

Marc Ambinder ruminates on how it feels to be a reporter getting played by McCain: McCain campaign airs