— Posted By: moma72 · Jun 11, 10:01 PM

Obviously, Cody and Nikki do not understand Senator Clinton’s underlying belief structure is so antithetical to John McCain that she could never vote or support him. Women’s reproductive rights are front and center in the feminist agenda. Mrs. Clinton is one of this country’s strongest supporters. Yet you, who were not born when women were using coat hangers as their method of choice, would support a man who so vehemently wants to deny a woman a right to chose her own destiny. A man who called his wife a cunt in public will make a better president than Barack Obama, a democrat who taught constitutional law? Yes, indeed, President Clinton was correct. Certain young people just don’t have any judgment.

As a 53 year old woman who has two college age sons, I cannot help but think that the two of you are not getting a very good education at the University of Iowa. Critical thinking must not be high on the agenda at such a large, land grant state school. The tax payers of Iowa are not getting good value for the money they are putting into your education.

You two are hypocrites. I hope Nikki never gets pregnant when raped because if John McCain has his way, there will be no legal abortion left.

Too bad you don’t know what Hillary and all the feminist of her generation went through. If you had any inkling, you would have listened to her speech on Saturday when she said the most important objective is to have a Democrat in office, and together we can make it happen. Yes we can!

— Posted By: · Jun 12, 05:09 PM

How, precisely, did Obama “race-bait” Hillary?

Enjoy the next 100 years of war in Iraq, Cody and Nikki. Well, not you Nikki. The guy you endorsed doesn’t believe women are capable of serving in combat.

— Posted By: crazymonk · Jun 12, 05:18 PM

“We think the endorsement will make more impact if it goes to John McCain, but we see Cynthia McKinney as a viable alternative and someone more qualified than Senator Obama to be President having served for longer in Congress.”

Translation: We are so bitter about Clinton’s loss that we endorse a candidate who is entirely antithetical to our ideals, based on a flimsy argument about surrogates and a lack of understanding about the lead up to the Iraq War. There is actually a candidate out there who actually represents our ideals even more than Clinton, but we endorse the man who called his wife a “cunt” because we saw some comments on a blog that called Clinton a “cunt.” We didn’t see any of that footage of Clinton supporters in West Virginia saying they would never vote for a black man. So even though he’s pro-life, pro-war, will cut taxes for the rich, will nominate radicals to the Supreme Court, answered a question gracefully that called Clinton a “bitch,” out of pure bitterness, we endorse McCain.

— Posted By: I am Gay and Proud · Jun 12, 05:27 PM

you are a FAG

— Posted By: kevdog · Jun 12, 05:28 PM

There’s really no other way to put this, you are idiots. You are more worried about someone’s feelings being hurt than actual policy. You deserve what you get.

— Posted By: LESD · Jun 12, 05:40 PM

This comment says it all: “we see Cynthia McKinney as a viable alternative and someone more qualified than Senator Obama to be President having served for longer in Congress.”

It’s also telling that, in explaining their choice for president, they felt the need to vent their anger at Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews before any mention of the war in Iraq.

Cody and Nikki are in desperate need of some adult supervision.

— Posted By: Gay Activist, Denver · Jun 12, 05:40 PM

Barack Obama is an even stronger and more vocal supporter of LGBT rights than Clinton. I have been a Gay activist for 30 years, you are angry, misinformed and misguided, son.

— Posted By: Alex · Jun 12, 05:45 PM

Misguided.

— Posted By: BM · Jun 12, 05:46 PM

More qualified to be commander in chief seems to be the operative phrase here… simply put, Obama is not.

— Posted By: chris · Jun 12, 05:52 PM

You get what you deserve. McCain ’09 won’t be good for anyone, including you, and I doubt you’d ever feel satisfied with your decision to help make it happen. Ignorant.

— Posted By: indybones · Jun 12, 05:53 PM

being older than the golden gate bridge does not automatically qualify someone for the presidency. a closer study of obama’s history (and how he has run his campaign) tears this ‘qualification’ argument to shreds. the mccain qualification advantage is thin on facts, consisting only of cheap conventional wisdom.

oh yeah, and ideas matter too.

— Posted By: ds · Jun 12, 05:58 PM

Wow. Sure, support McCain if you think he’ll guide this country in a direction that fits your values. But I got to say: your endorsement reeks of spite. Barack Obama may not have the traditional qualifications of a presidential candidate, but in a country where every president has been a wealthy white man, perhaps it is time to buck tradition. Hilary Clinton, I reckon, would agree with that statement and her candidacy illustrated as much. As has been consistently shown in the world of politics, long-tenure and voting record are not necessarily indications of personal integrity, aptitude, and leadership. The American people, regardless of for whom they punch the ballot, should be sure that they are voting with these traits in mind.

— Posted By: Wy Cowboy · Jun 12, 05:58 PM

Cody & Nikki,
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Obama is not qualified to be Commander in Chief. Period. It has nothing to do withhis race. It has everything to do with his judgment.

— Posted By: Jim Crozier · Jun 12, 06:04 PM

So, let me see if I can break down the arguments for why you don’t think Senator Obama is worth your vote:

“Hillary Clinton has received the worst treatment of any candidate in recent history in a primary from a largely pro-Obama media and from supposed liberals supporting Senator Obama. There has been rampant sexism and race baiting going on throughout this campaign. Whether it be the call by Keith Olbermann to have a superdelegate take her in to a room and “only he come out”, or when Chris Matthews insisted Hillary Clinton was not elected to her senate seat on merit, but because her husband cheated on her.”

You are arguing that the media was unfair to Senator Clinton. How is this Senator Obama’s fault? Is he some sort of black Professor Xavieresque, who with telepathy who can control the media through mind powers alone?

People running for office try and get positive media coverage for themselves. That is just a part of the game of politics. Bill Clinton did it in his time. You can’t complain just because Senator Obama was better at it than Senator Clinton was.

“We her supporters have witnessed nasty things on the streets here in Iowa City too; We have been labeled racist, we have heard the word “cunt” used to describe our candidate from supposed liberals, and I was actually called a “fag” by a worker on the Obama campaign, in fact a precinct captain.”

I’ve been called a pig, a swine, an oinker, a juvenile, a piece of s***, and countless other names from Hillary supporters. I’d still have voted for Hillary if she won the nomination, because a candidates stances on the issues are far more important than a handful of their more fanatical and less mature supporters. Over 18 million people voted and supported Senator Obama. Is he supposed to somehow monitor every single thing, that every single one of those people in 50 states says?

Apparently you think he is, because you’re prepared to defy Senator Clinton’s own request for you to support Senator Obama, who policy wise is nearly identical to Senator Clinton, and instead are working to elect someone who is Senator Clinton’s polar opposite, why? Just because some supporters of Obama’s hurt your feelings? Not a very mature decision.

“Senator Obama is unqualified for the job of Commander in Chief. He has said this himself at a press conference after the 2004 election after winning his Illinois seat. He has said he would invade Pakistan if necessary to attack al-Qaeda elements, which is a bad idea seeing how Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is unstable right now. His remarks on Pakistan sparked rioting there last year.”

I would expect Democrats of your standing to be a bit better educated, or at least accurate in their quoting. Senator Obama stated he would take targeted action against Al Qaeda in Pakistan if he had actionable intelligence and Pakistan refused to act on the intelligence at the US’s request. That’s a little different than threatening all-out invasions.

He’s also the man who actually stood up against the Iraq war from the start. John McCain’s visits are photo ops. He’s the one who has voted in lockstep with Bush on the Iraq war, regardless of how many times he visits Iraq.

“Finally, Senator Obama was not nominated as we see it, but appointed by the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC. He took his name off of the ballot in Michigan in order to pander to voters here in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich did not. She received over 50% of the vote there and he received zero votes. However, an unprecedented thing happened, the RBC of the DNC took the uncommitted votes of those that did not vote for Hillary and gave them to Senator Obama, votes he DID NOT WIN. And to deepen the wound, they stripped 4 delegates from her and gave them to him. Had this been done right, with her getting her share and him getting his zero, she would have led in pledged delegates and the popular vote (and she still does), and would be the nominee.”

Once again you show your ignorance. Even if Hillary got 100% of the delegates from Michigan (and by the rules that ALL candidates agreed to before hand no candidate should have gotten ANY delegates at all…) but even if she DID get 100% of the delegates, she STILL would have trailed Obama. And the rules (again with those pesky rules) state that delegates are all that matter. If Hillary didn’t like the rules, she, or her husband, could have tried to change them anytime in the last TWO DECADES when they worked in the Clintons’ favor.

Is Senator Obama to be punished for campaigning like Michigan and Florida wouldn’t count when everyone said going in that they wouldn’t? That Hillary got any delegates AT ALL from these states is because she started complaining AFTER SHE WON that they should count, when BEFORE SHE WON she stated that they weren’t going to count for anything repeatedly.

“John McCain is an honorable man. He is good personal friends with Hillary Clinton. He is qualified to be president. We do not agree with him on everything, and this is why we urge you to strongly support Democrats up for re-election to congress. He served our country, he is right on immigration, right on global warming, and he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned Marriage Equality.”

Senator McCain has some notable times when he’s bucked his party. He also has a 95% record of voting with President Bush. This isn’t an opinion. This is a FACT. Again, as educated Democrats I would expect you to know this. You are doing what is known as “cutting off your nose to spite your face”. You’re unhappy your candidate lost, but rather than do the rational thing and vote for someone who agrees with your candidate on 99% of the issues you’re voting, and urging others to vote for, someone who disagrees with your candidate 95% of the time. Not very smart.

“We will not campaign for John McCain, but we will vote for him, and urge others to do the same.”

How is it not campaigning for Senator McCain to post that you’re voting for him on this website and to “urge others to do the same”? Do you realize how contradictory that statement is?

You have a choice. You can try and put a Democrat in office in 2008, or spend the next eight years regretting it as people who stayed home and didn’t vote for Al Gore in 2000 did after he lost to George Bush. (The “Compassionate Conservative”…not much different from the “Honorable Man” John McCain.)

Up to you. I hope you branch out from your little closed bubble and join the rest of the adults.

— Posted By: crazymonk · Jun 12, 06:06 PM

“It has everything to do with his judgment.”

You mean his brilliant speech in 2003 that was not only against the war, but predicted with amazing accuracy the post-war fiasco? Or McCain’s judgment to support Bush 100% on the war until it became politically unpopular? Give me two things Wy Cowboy: 1) Facts that back up your claim that Obama has bad judgment; and 2) Facts that show that McCain has better judgment.

— Posted By: Grapevine · Jun 12, 06:07 PM

Cynthia McKinney is more qualified to be president than Obama?!! The crazy woman who attacked a Capitol police officer?? Anyone who considers her a viable alternative clearly has no credibility on this issue.

— Posted By: IDIOTS · Jun 12, 06:10 PM

If you were actually voting for Hillary on policy issues you would never defect to McCain. You guys are pretty dumb for people heading a political organization.

— Posted By: Sad · Jun 12, 06:17 PM

There comes a time when you have to put the country before the party and before the candidate. Unfortunately, you couldn’t see beyond your petty “victim mentality.” Now you expect the country to suffer because you are mad that your candidate didn’t make it? You are not a democrat, you are not an American, you are a Clintonite. Shame on you.

— Posted By: HA! · Jun 12, 06:18 PM

I know your type. Self-promoting bloviators who take part in politics to flame their own ambitions. If you had a half a mind toward principles outside of self-interest, you’d understand that Obama represents the same causes as Clinton. As a former Clinton supporter, I’m embarrassed that we were once under the same banner. Good riddance. May your ambitions come to fruition in the GOP—it seems the better match.

— Posted By: Barbara · Jun 12, 06:18 PM

Good job Cody and Nikki; judging by the tenor of the commentary here, I can see the level of attack to which you’ve been subjected for your support of Hillary. Shameful

— Posted By: Martin W · Jun 12, 06:19 PM

“Had this been done right, with her getting her share and him getting his zero, she would have led in pledged delegates and the popular vote (and she still does), and would be the nominee.”

Obama’s lead in pledged delegates is 127. In case you don’t know, 127 > 4. This is just pure dumbass sour grapes.

— Posted By: indybones · Jun 12, 06:27 PM

barbara, you must also consider that they are going against their own candidate’s wishes and simultaneously trying to sabotage the causes hillary represents. only a fool would think this behavior above reproach.

— Posted By: innocent passerby · Jun 12, 06:29 PM

When Obama was writing his book he was given office space at the University of Chicago by a Michael McConnell. The same man who was later appointed a Fed Judge by Bush in Utah. Obama knew him from his days at the Harvard Law Review where as editor Obama chose to include an araticle by McConnell. It is this article which has become the legal foundation for
denying federal tax money for abortions. Why NARAL endorsed Obama
is a mystery to me.

— Posted By: MichDem · Jun 12, 06:33 PM

You show complete disrespect for Hillary Clinton and everything that she has stood for during her political life. You would support McCain, who wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned, and would appoint the justices who would do so, notwithstanding Hillary’s fervent support of reproductive choice? There are dozens of other issues where McCain’s position is anathema to Hillary, but this one alone should disqualify him from receiving the vote of a true Hillary supporter.

You also disrespect her by disregarding her urging to support and work for Obama, dismissing her endorsement with this statement: “She did this to obviously keep her promise to the voters to unite behind the nominee.” So, was her promise insincere, said only to placate Democrats during the primaries? Or was the promise sincere, but her enthusiastic support for Obama against McCain insincere? This is the person who you claim would be a great President, who possesses great substantive wisdom and great personal qualities, but you toss off her recommendation and advice about the general election as if it means nothing.

Here’s a suggestion and a challenge to you. Send a copy of your endorsement of McCain to Hillary and ask her to respond. I don’t think you’ll like what you’ll hear.

— Posted By: Chris · Jun 12, 06:33 PM

If you think anything that happend to you during the primary was bad, you fail to understand the depths to which Republicans will go to win. You should also stop and consider whether choosing a President because of petty bickering during a primary is a good standard to use. If you are smart enough to lead a state-wide political group, you should know better. But perhaps not – if you can actually believe that Cynthia McKinney is a good alternative, you deserve the pitiful government you are willing to elect.

— Posted By: Lynne · Jun 12, 06:36 PM

Dear Cody and Nikki: I hope you take some time and reconsider your opinions. I know you are both feeling disappointed, angry, and disillusioned, but Clinton and Obama are actually very close in terms of their policies and positions- McCain is not. Take a deep breath, think about what would actually happen if McCain is elected, and remember that no one forced Clinton to endorse Obama… and that supporting a third party candidate is the equivalent of voting for McCain. If you think it doesn’t matter, your support for Hillary’s campaign was shallow indeed. Show that you really do support the same causes she does by posting an intelligent retraction. You may be angry now, but 4 years of McCain will make you deeply regret your words.

— Posted By: Jeremy · Jun 12, 06:41 PM

Let me get this straight – some of Obama’s supporters were sexist and made rude statements about Clinton.

So you’re going to vote for John McCain, the man who said “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her real father is Janet Reno.”!
That wasn’t a McCain supporter, nor a McCain surrogate. That was John McCain himself, at a Republican fundraiser in 1998.
The man is an anti-feminist dinosaur. I can understand you sitting out the election, but – endorsing this man? I just don’t understand that.

— Posted By: Chris · Jun 12, 06:41 PM

Barack Obama may say he’s for the politics of “change” and “hope” and “compassion”… but his followers sure aren’t. I’ve never seen such hate and anger in my life. Good for you Cody and Nikki — your courage is admirable.

— Posted By: mizmite · Jun 12, 06:44 PM

no wonder she lost

— Posted By: John · Jun 12, 06:47 PM

You deserve what you ask for from McCain, 4 more years of wars, worthless US$, a healthcare for the rich only, and trillions of national debt to China that your children & grandchildren will have to pay. Bravo!

— Posted By: KJ · Jun 12, 06:49 PM

I would just like to echo many of the comments by saying no true Hillary supporter would vote for McCain over Obama. Hillary and Barack are virtually identical in terms of policy preferences and if you believe in what Hillary is for then your conscience would tell you to vote for Obama. The only explanation is that this was not about what Hillary believes but about winning, about picking the right candidate, about being part of the levers of power. This is just sad. But if you love America and you truly do support Hillary Clinton then you’ll change your mind and vote for Obama in November. Right now your brain is just having trouble sorting through the anti-Obama rhetoric but that shouldn’t last long once you actually start thinking about what you are saying.

— Posted By: Geri · Jun 12, 06:56 PM

I agree. I am also supporting John McCain. Originally an Edwards supporter, I experienced from the Obama campaign nothing but rancor, vitriol, bigotry (Obama supporter wearing a t-shirt saying “I’m sick of white bitches” to the precinct caucus (in Jan.) — and I thought this wasn’t supposed to be about race), voter fraud, intimidation, and dirty tricks at the precinct, county, and state levels.
Because of this, when Edwards dropped out, I threw my support to Hillary. However, had Obama won the nomination fair and square (which he did not for the many reasons stated above), I would have supported the Democratic nominee, as I have done almost all my life. Unfortunately, I cannot this time.

I cannot because Obama and the people with whom he has associated, both personal and political, over the past 20 years, lead me to support the other candidate — a man who has proven himself to be honorable, even though I don’t always agree with him.

Unfortunately, Obama reminds me of the saying, “When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.”

— Posted By: aleupp · Jun 12, 06:59 PM

If you cared, i mean REALLY cared, about the policies that Hillary holds dear— especially affordable health care for all— you wouldnt endorse a man who stands at 180 degrees to Hillary on every issue.

Your decision is an emotional, shortsighted, spiteful, and counter-productive one.

I hope, when you’ve had more time to reflect on the consequences of a potential McCain Presidency, you might reconsider your foolish choice.

— Posted By: haha · Jun 12, 07:14 PM

hahahaha. oh wow. this is good stuff.

— Posted By: Patrick · Jun 12, 07:28 PM

I will join fellow Clinton supporters in VOting for McCain this year and become an Independent. These Obamabots just dont get it! We dont want an emoty suit running this country!!

— Posted By: trollbait? · Jun 12, 07:36 PM

I hope that Nikki enjoys giving up her reproductive rights, and Cody gets ready for Iran! Suit up guys!

— Posted By: please read · Jun 12, 07:37 PM

“Three of the five Justices in the majority — John Paul Stevens (age 88), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 75) and David Souter (age 68) — are widely expected by court observers to retire or otherwise leave the Court in the first term of the next President. By contrast, the four judges who dissented — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito — are expected to stay right where they are for many years to come.
John McCain has identified Roberts and Alito as ideal justices of the type he would nominate, while Barack Obama has identified Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ginsberg (all in the majority today). It’s not hyperbole to say that, from Supreme Court appointments alone, our core constitutional protections could easily depend upon the outcome of the 2008 election.”

(Glenn Greenwald on Salon)

— Posted By: FLGirl · Jun 12, 07:52 PM

Yeah! Go McCain down with Obama.

PUMA in FL

— Posted By: FLGirl · Jun 12, 07:53 PM

VOTERS RECLAIM THEIR VOICES AND VOW TO “JUST SAY NO DEAL”

Explosion of rogue grassroots organizations coalesces overnight to form Mega-Coalition: JustSayNoDeal.com

- Online, in Washington D.C. and Nationwide– Growing exponentially — individually, but infinitely together in one unifying mission — they are Senator Barack Obama’s gravest concern. On the evening of June 8, 2008, dozens of grassroots organizations and political activists convened a conference call and formed a coalition: Just Say No Deal. Its goal? : To turn the current race on its head and remind voters that all options are on the table this November.

Just Say No Deal is an umbrella organization giving voice to over 80 grassroots organizations, blogs and millions of self- professed PUMAs (Party Unity My A_ _) intent on one mission: NOBAMA! Coalition members are pushing varying agendas and voting strategies, but the factions are united in their unwavering decision to not “fall in line” by supporting Barack Obama.

Concerned citizens have come out of the woodwork to express their distaste for and frustration with party leaders and the outcome of the nominating process. The Just Say No Deal website offers those voters an array of choices to assist in their decision-making process. The coalition will continue to organize in pursuit of its mission of keeping another unqualified candidate from inheriting the Oval Office.

— Posted By: Zak Carter · Jun 12, 08:07 PM

A Declaration of Withdrawal from the Republican Party

My reasons for leaving the Party that I’ve felt at home in since I became politically aware are numerous. I will start with quoting countless conservatives who feel as I do – I didn’t so much leave the Republican Party, it was the Party that left me. The elected Republican officials failed to implement a conservative agenda, despite having the Presidency and both houses of congress. No Child Left Behind, Prescription Drug Entitlements; they even tried to force Amnesty for illegal aliens upon us. They have given us a government that would make even LBJ blush. Our businesses and land have more regulatory red tape to deal with than ever.

Where is the Republican Party that stood for limited government, personal responsibility, a strong national defense, and against being the world’s policeman? As recently as the 90’s Republicans railed against a foreign policy of “making the world safe for democracy”, (which is historically the Democrats foreign policy, ala Woodrow Wilson) when Bill Clinton was President and he took us to war in Bosnia and Kosovo, without U.N. approval I might add. Which reminds me, the United Nations is something the GOP used to believe we needed to get out of, not an institution to be defended when a rogue nation violates U.N. resolutions.

I am also reminded of former Senator Robert Taft, who was known in his day as Mr. Republican, when he said “I do not believe any policy which has behind it the threat of military force is justified as part of the basic foreign policy of the United States except to defend the liberty of our own people” and my favorite President – Thomas Jefferson, who said “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, and entangling alliances with none.”

From its inception, the Republican Party advocated a humble foreign policy in line with our founding fathers recommendations, now, with John McCain as the leader and voice of the GOP, we are told to get behind his idea for a “League of Democracies” which sounds terrifyingly similar to Wilson and his Progressive Democrats “League of Nations” almost 100 years ago.

We are also being told by McCain that we will have to Cap and Trade our liberty and our pursuit of happiness in the fight against global warming, essentially that if we don’t give government more money and power, utopia will never be reached.

Some have told me that I should support him because he will appoint conservative judges, but I ask these questions – 1. Who’s definition of conservative are we talking about? And 2. Why would I trust the man on this issue when he is one of the “Gang of 14” who was blocking President Bush’s conservative lower federal court and Circuit Courts of Appeal judicial nominees? I would also remind you of his historical propensity to appease those even more liberal than himself. His version of “reaching across the aisle” looks more like a group hug when he crafts legislation like the McCain / Kennedy and McCain / Feingold bills. McCain / Feingold happens to be the reason McCain should not get the NRA’s endorsement, the NRA spent years fighting this trampling of our 1st amendment rights. McCain has not been the solid 2nd amendment supporter he would like you to believe he is – he had a barely passing “C” grade from the NRA in his last senate run in 04’ , and in 2000 worked with Americans for Gun Safety, an anti-gun group with a deceiving name.

The differences between McCain and Obama are minimal, when you consider that both believe big government can save you from yourself, and that we can save other nations from themselves as well. Given McCain’s track record of conciliatory dealings with Democrats, I fear what this man would do with a Democratic House and Senate. I will not play along with the game of lesser of two evils, as I believe that is part of what has plunged this nation into the mess we find ourselves today.

Once upon a time the Republican Party stood against special interests, corruption and abuse of power. Today their candidates campaign is “ of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, for the lobbyist.” A man who admits Washington’s corruption has tainted him. Google Keating 5 and read all about it.

The Republican Party today would be unrecognizable to my favorite Republicans of yesterday, such as Barry Goldwater, who said “ A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away.” President Eisenhower, who warned us of the Military Industrial Complex, and one whose party membership is a surprise to many today but shouldn’t be, Martin Luther King Jr. “Violence is a poor chisel for carving out peaceful tomorrows.” The party is just as unrecognizable to myself and others of my generation.

I had to draw a line in the sand, and the Republican Party wasted no time in crossing it, when they and the President pushed for “economic stimulus checks.” The only problem is this, the money isn’t money that we have, its money we are borrowing, and our excessive borrowing becomes a tax on future generations, as we wont be paying it off any time soon. Want to try to sell this as economically conservative? Excessive borrowing and spending has the added affect of devaluing our currency, so it acts as a hidden tax on us today. As I heard one of the presidential candidates say in regards to these stimulus checks, “ Whose economy are we stimulating here? Ours or Chinas? We are borrowing more money from China so everyone can go buy more stuff made in China.” I get it, others in the GOP get it, so why doesn’t the party leadership?

I can’t take anymore disrespect for conservative values, and unless the Republican Party wakes up and gets it’s head on straight real soon, I will be taking my vote, my time, energy, money, and passion from the GOP and taking it to the Libertarian Party to send a message to the Republican leadership that I will not be taken for granted. I believe that it is solid conservatism that wins the day and elections – limited government, individual responsibility, and a strong national DEFENSE (secure the borders!), not conciliation and surrender to Democrats to the point that our differences become blurry.

The Libertarian Party seems to be a perfect temporary home, the GOP has its work cut out if its sincere about winning me back, even President Reagan said “Libertarianism is the very heart and soul of conservatism.” I will be doing everything I can to sway like minded conservatives to join me in this exodus and vote for Bob Barr for President and Wayne Root for Vice President on the Libertarian ticket. Both of them were recently Republicans, and are among those countless conservatives I‘ve heard myself say “ It wasn’t that I left the Republican Party, it was the Party that left me.”

Please visit bobbarr2008.com and give conservatism a voice in the Presidential debates and beyond.

Thanks and God Bless, from Zak Carter

— Posted By: Karl Koch · Jun 12, 09:00 PM

Woah, that’s so amazingly stupid. If McCain really get’s elected, you really get the gouvernment you deserve. :D

First of all, Mr. Obama and the members of his election campaign most certainly never did in any unproper way attack Mrs. Rodham Clinton. On the contrary; Obama promised a clean campaign, without personal attacks. And he kept that promise; the only ‘attacks’ mounted versus Mrs. Rodham Clinton were based on purely political issues, not personal ones. Gender was never an issue.
Whatever some of Mr. Obama’s supporters might have or might not have done; I doubt that Mr. Obama can be held responsible for that. Neither can Mrs. Rodham Clinton be held responsible for the thoughless and damaging actions of some of her supporters.

But, go ahead! Please
give us another eight years of ludicrous US american domestic and foreign policy, please!

Because this way, the world will throw away the yoke of the US american imperialism much faster and europe can heal from the surpression of the last fifty years. Please! US america’s economy will fail, the women will lose the right to decide over their own wombs, the divide between poor and rich will get bigger, the war will rage on for a hundred years. The blood of another four thousand US american soldiers will fertilize the soil of Irak.

Please, go ahead. Vote for McCain. And the USA will be hated, loathed and laught upon for another eight years.

Watching the USA burn and fall into another civil war might actually be entertaining…

— Posted By: Dembo · Jun 12, 09:46 PM

It’s one thing to vote for McCain because you generally believe he’ll be a better president. Quite another to vote for him out of bitterness that your candidate lost. That seems to be really what’s happening. It’s a campaign, elbows get thrown, someone loses. Grow up.

— Posted By: Patriot · Jun 12, 09:56 PM

Moma72 are you crazy? You sound mildly retarded. First off, get your facts straight, McCain supports choice when rape or incest occurs, or when the mother is in danger. Don’t misconstrue the truth to further your political agenda. Speaking of which, how dare you claim that these two aren’t getting a good ‘taxpayer’ education because they are supporting the republican candidate.

As for McCain being someone who vehemently opposes women’s rights to choose … ever think that maybe you have the right to choose before you have sex? John McCain is a noble man, and has adopted children – children who would not be here if their mothers were lazy and decided that 9 months of labor was too much of a burden, that 9 months of labor was too difficult to go through in order to bring a child into the world that someone else could adopt. I too was adopted, and plan on adopting children myself. My biological brother was adopted, my biological grandfather was adopted (and adopted two children of his own).

As for you people still using the ’100 year’ remark out of context … really? Get a life, please … if that is all you have you are doomed in November.

Dembo you want to talk about ludicrous foreign policy? How does unconditionally speaking with tyrannical dictators sound to you? A little naive perhaps? It should.

— Posted By: idiot obama trolls · Jun 12, 10:06 PM

The Obama trolls are out in force as usual. Get some new talking points will you boys? Roe v. Wade has survived HOW MANY Republican administrations? Yet somehow John McCain will single handedly over turn it? If boys think that you really are scared of McCain. rolleye

— Posted By: Nzone · Jun 12, 10:12 PM

This is a well reasoned endorsement. I voted for BO on Super Tuesday. Now I know that it was a mistake. His 20 years connection with Wright made me realized that I didn’t know this man. And he has been hiding a lot of things from the voters. He lied to us and his historic speech on race was a setup. I have been fooled. I blamed DNC for letting this man run. They should not present this unqualified & unvetted man for our consideration.

If I can’t vote for Hillary in November, I will vote for McCain. I need to rectify my mistake.

— Posted By: chezmadame · Jun 12, 10:26 PM

How’s that unity thing working out?

— Posted By: B positive · Jun 12, 10:35 PM

I, too, endorse McCain! He is a battled-tested American war hero. Hillary is my first choice… if she is not on my ballot come November I will gladly cast my vote for McCain! The DNC has toyed with the real voters long enough! PUMA !!! GoHillaryGo!!

— Posted By: alex k · Jun 12, 10:35 PM

Hillary would easily beat McCain in November, Obama will not – it’s that simple. And for good reason – look at some of Obama’s associations and look at his lack of experience compared to Hillary’s.

Bad choice Democrats….and no amount of unity propaganda can fix it.

— Posted By: s. valenti · Jun 12, 10:46 PM

Don’t insult our intelligence telling us that Roe v. Wade will be overturned if McCain wins the presidency. Democrats have a clear majority and expect to expand their lead in Congress in the November elections. Let them exercise control over McCain’s so-called conservative initiatives.

The Democratic Party has only itself to blame by promoting the candidacy of someone untested, inexperienced and whose judgment is repeatedly called into question.

Thanks Cody and Nikki for a thoughtful endorsement of the other experienced, principled candidate in this race besides Hillary Clinton – John McCain.

— Posted By: Puma_Gal · Jun 12, 10:49 PM

I will never vote for BO. He is way too far left. This Hillary supporter is definitely going to vote for John McCain. Too bad BObots you can vote for BO if you want but you won’t change my vote. The DNC, MSM and BO supporters will reap what they deserve.

— Posted By: Robert Anderson · Jun 12, 11:19 PM

I think voting for mccain is commiting suicide with your civil libertys. He has a extream military background. If 911 happend if he was president we would be living under marshall law. He is so stuck in his military bubble that he dose not know how to any thing else. I hope you change your minds and protect you liberitys and vote for OBAMA. You will be glad you did. We need to unite and defeat faciest mccain.

— Posted By: Ruth · Jun 12, 11:21 PM

So this is who you’re going to vote for? (“How do we beat the bitch”).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o

Good riddence.

— Posted By: Joe · Jun 12, 11:34 PM

I can definitely conclude that Cody is low in intellect and knowledge.

Why

1) OB campaign was dirty ??? Get real. Both were dirty. All campaigns are dirty. Are you even remotely intelligent Cody?

2) He was appointed. You obviously cannot even read. the DNC has something called rules. Like our beloved country has laws that people are supposed to follow. He and others took their name off the ballot. Try to read a bit and draw some pictures about how people follow rules – like traffic laws. OB did this. He won. She is simply a sore loser and so are you. I am surprised you are admitted to a college. No wonder our student standards are declining.

3) Hillary’s support for the Sikhs is not a general support for the Indian American community. The Sikhs are a militant group that tried to form their own country in India and killed innocent American and Canadian people in a terrorist attack by blowing up a commercial 747 in mid-air, like Qaddafi did. Please read, go to the library and do research. Hanging out with a couple of nuts because they are from India does not constitute a pro-India strategy. On the contrary it shows complete ignorance. There are three major groups that have committed terrorist acts in India – militant/fundamentalist Muslims, militant/fundamentalist Hindus, and militant Sikhs. Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated by a militant Sikh. You should be luck to be flipping hamburgers, given your knowledge of world affairs.

4) What is wrong with considering invading Pakistan. It is the most dangerous country in the world. They are a dictatorship. They aer backward. they are feudal. They are corrupt. they are anti-American. They kill Americans. They breed and foster terrorism. They fight a democratic and secular India. They are armed by US money and US arms. They created the Taliban. Do you ned any more. In my opinion we should cut all ties to Pakistan and brand them a terrorist nation. No different that Iran. They gave nuclear secrets, stolen from America to Iran and other terrorist nations. They are a country found on religion – not on secular values. It is one of the most corrupt and dangerous nations on this planet. More so than Iran.

I simply state – you are a person of very low education, reading and knowledge i.e. low in intellect and ability.

I really don’t care who you vote for. But I do care that you spout stupidity based on non-factual information simple because you stumbled into a position of some kind of “authority”, but he was not normal. You are similar. Surprising in the USA.

Maybe Cody should live in Pakistan for a year and study in a madrassa, because studying in Iowa is not working. She cannot read or comprehend facts and argue cogently.

— Posted By: Joe · Jun 12, 11:39 PM

I can definitely conclude that Cody is low in intellect and knowledge.

Why

1) OB campaign was dirty ??? Get real. Both were dirty. All campaigns are dirty. Are you even remotely intelligent Cody?

2) He was appointed. You obviously cannot even read. the DNC has something called rules. Like our beloved country has laws that people are supposed to follow. He and others took their name off the ballot. Try to read a bit and draw some pictures about how people follow rules – like traffic laws. OB did this. He won. She is simply a sore loser and so are you. I am surprised you are admitted to a college. No wonder our student standards are declining.

3) Hillary’s support for the Sikhs is not a general support for the Indian American community. The Sikhs are a militant group that tried to form their own country in India and killed innocent American and Canadian people in a terrorist attack by blowing up a commercial 747 in mid-air, like Qaddafi did. Please read, go to the library and do research. Hanging out with a couple of nuts because they are from India does not constitute a pro-India strategy. On the contrary it shows complete ignorance. There are three major groups that have committed terrorist acts in India – militant/fundamentalist Muslims, militant/fundamentalist Hindus, and militant Sikhs. Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated by a militant Sikh. You should be lucky to be flipping hamburgers, given your knowledge of world affairs.

4) What is wrong with considering invading Pakistan. It is the most dangerous country in the world. They are a dictatorship. They are backward. they are feudal. They are corrupt. they are anti-American. They kill Americans. They breed and foster terrorism. They fight a democratic and secular India. They are armed by US money and US arms. They created the Taliban. Do you need any more. In my opinion we should cut all ties to Pakistan and brand them a terrorist nation. No different that Iran. They gave nuclear secrets, stolen from America no doubt, to Iran and other terrorist nations. They are a country found on extreme religion – not on secular values like the USA and India. Pakistan is one of the most corrupt and dangerous nations on this planet. More so than Iran.

I simply state – you are a person of very low education, reading and knowledge i.e. low in intellect and ability.

I really don’t care who you vote for. But I do care that you spout stupidity based on non-factual statements that demonstrate ignorance. Simple because you stumbled into a position of some kind of “authority”, but he was not normal. You are like Idi Amin, he was in a position of authority but that does not mean he was even close to a normal human being. You come across similar. Surprising in the USA.

Maybe Cody should live in Pakistan for a year and study in a madrassa, because studying in Iowa is not working. She cannot read or comprehend facts and then argue cogently.

— Posted By: RoscoeOfAlabama · Jun 12, 11:45 PM

Justices Stevens and Ginsberg will probably not last until 2013. Meaning, if John McCain is the next president, he will replace them with justices “in the model of Alito and Roberts.”

That means bye bye Roe v. Wade.

But, you know what, sure; support a politician that shares none of your values just because your candidate lost in the primary. Yeah, that’s mature.

By the way, my candidate lost too, but I got over it.

— Posted By: Putney · Jun 12, 11:54 PM

She is a foolish schmuck

— Posted By: Doris · Jun 13, 12:01 AM

My husband and I both will be voting for McCain
aand we voted in the Dem Primary.

— Posted By: anne · Jun 13, 12:11 AM

It’s great that there are people with enough spine to stand up to the Obama strong-arm bandwagon. Dear Obamanots, you can stop the roe v. wade threats, no president would ever dare touch it, it’s their wedge issue, and if they tried they’d never win another presidential election. So if you think unity by threat is going to work for you, think again.

— Posted By: McCain Supporter · Jun 13, 12:19 AM

As a Republican I welcome the two of you to our party. Join us and help us put a truly strong President McCain into office. We need a President who understands that victory in Iraq is not negotiable. We must stay there until victory is achieved!

— Posted By: Marc Adin · Jun 13, 12:41 AM

McCain is a candidate who is antithetical to everything Clinton has held dear over all these years.

Your position can only be described as some sort of suicidal cult of personality. You would wish the destructive effects of a McCain presidency upon the United States simply because the candidate you supported did not win the Democratic nomination? Someday you will regret this ridiculous decision. A McCain presidency would surely risk a pre-emptive strike against Iran. You should give this decision very serious thought, not because your position will influence anyone, but because you will have to live with the responsibility of your actions until the day you die.

Sure the Republicans who support GW Bush will welcome you. Do they really represent your ideals? If they do, join up, and give some money to GWB’s Presidential Library while you are at it.

— Posted By: thisiscrap · Jun 13, 01:59 AM

This is a seriously immature, sore-loser type mentality. You are blaming things on Obama that he has no control over, and your choice is clearly motivated by your need to get back at what….the media, the party insiders that you would have loved if they’d voted for Clinton? You are childish and beyond foolish. Please get some help to get through your anger…it’s toxic and destructive.

— Posted By: YOUNGMOM3 · Jun 13, 02:45 AM

I RESPECT THEIR ENDORSEMENTS OF MCCAIN AND AM PERSONALLY STILL DELIBERATING.

SHAME ON THE HORRID ARROGANT STATEMENTS MADE BY THE INTOLERANT OBAMA SUPPORTERS CLINGING TO THEIR CLOAK OF ELITE SMUGNESS. THIS SAD BEHAVIOUR ONLY REINFORCES MY BELIEF THAT OBAMA-NUTS ARE ZEALOUS, RUDE, AND IMMATURE.

— Posted By: Kim · Jun 13, 03:01 AM

I am a delegate and I too will not vote for Obama. I have never seen a campaign that used the kind of tactics Mr. Obama’s campaign did. Under the direction of Axelrod who made Karl Rove look innocent.

One tactic of this campaign was to accuse the opposition of doing the very thing you were doing while appearing to be “Mr. Innocent” Another was to release an inflamed lie about your opposition and wait till the damage was done, then step in and say you don’t agree with it and look humble and renounce such smearing. On and on and on it went.

Those are some examples. I have many reasons but, I did not come here to justify them. There was so much cheating at my caucus and pressuring and underhanded tactics with regard to Hillary delegates that it was appalling. What was more interesting was how the DNC let all this pass.

I will hold my nose and vote McCain to keep Mr. Obama out of office knowing what I now know of him. I did not feel this way when the contest started and would have voted for either candidate. That’s a shame but, I place the blame squarely on Axelrod and the DNC.

— Posted By: hutch · Jun 13, 05:30 AM

David Boren, the only Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, told reporters yesterday he’s not ready to endorse Mr. Obama. “Unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion,” he told reporters. Mr. Obama’s designation by the nonpartisan National Journal magazine as the Senate’s most liberal member may be catching up with him.

Then there is Rep. Tim Mahoney of Florida, who says he will remain an uncommitted superdelegate and may not even attend the party’s convention. Asked how he felt about running with Mr. Obama as his party’s nominee, he told the Palm Beach Post: “I’m a Democrat, but am I going to have a pep rally or something like that? No I’m not going to do that.”

Another potential dissident is Rep. Jim Marshall of Georgia. He has refused to tell reporters if he thinks Barack Obama would make a better president than John McCain. Finally, Rep. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee has been outed by his state’s governor, Phil Bredesen, who told the Philadelphia Inquirer that a Democratic congressman from this state, who could only be Rep. Davis, had told him both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were “poison” politically to him. – Source WSJ

— Posted By: mick · Jun 13, 07:48 AM

and here come the wingnut trolls

— Posted By: tobyjoyce@eircom.net · Jun 13, 08:47 AM

Ok, lets indulge ourselves and wallow in our smug little thoughts of revenge, while John McCain dismantles Roe vs Wade, confirms Bush’s tax cuts, eviscerates any hope of healthcare reform, pushes a constitutional ban on gay marriage, encourages the religious right to continue its attacks on our secular constitution, continues the Iraq war and maybe starts at least one more, and continues the undermining of civil liberties through his Supreme Court appointees.

Well, at least its not Barck Obama in White House. What a consolation!

The rational course here, folks, is to vote for the candidate whose program is closest to your own preference. If you supported Hilary Clinton then that candidate is NOT John McCain.

— Posted By: JKR · Jun 13, 09:50 AM

You students are showing something that is relatively unseen in the Democratic party—a spine! Obama is hijacking the party and moving it to Chicago when he isn’t even officially the nominee. Plenty of thugs in Chicago, his home turf, to quell protest. It’s scary.

— Posted By: NeverForget · Jun 13, 10:00 AM

That’s an excellent analysis and description of your decision and the reasoning behind it.
It’s too bad that Sen. Obama’s hired keyboard warriors swarmed the comments thread, but that’s all they have. There’s nothing of substance or record which qualifies their chosen candidate for the most important public service job in the country.
I still chuckle when his infamous “speech” is referenced, the one for which absolutely NO record, video, audio or local press, exists, except in the empty mind of the candidate, himself. Maybe he gave it in front of the mirror. :-)
I know how hard this decision was and I, myself, a longtime loyal Dem and activist, will be thinking long and hard about whether I want to enable the joining together of ChiTown and DC corruption.
Stay strong and smart, there are many, many of us who share your thoughts and concerns.

— Posted By: Grownup · Jun 13, 10:13 AM

This looks an awful lot like what we used to call an attention-getting device on the part of Cody and Nikki. At the very least, it’s irresponsible and kind of brainless.

— Posted By: Elspeth · Jun 13, 10:33 AM

I’d like to thank Nikki and Cody for their courage in making this announcement. I have been a lifelong Democrat: I voted for Mondale/Ferraro, Dukakis, Clinton (twice), Gore and Kerry. I have voted the ticket in every election and I have NEVER voted for a Republican. Ever.

This year I’m voting for McCain. And a lot of it is for reasons which you two have expressed so well. It is heartbreaking to have to vote against a party that one has been a member of for over 20 years, but there comes a point where you have draw the line. Rigging the nomination process so that an inexperienced person with criminal ties, racist associates, and many vulnerable points of attack is probably the most foolhardy thing the Democratic party has ever done in my lifetime. I almost wonder if they want to lose this election. Either that, or their desire to have the first Black president—a worthy goal—leads them to be blind to this specific candidate’s many, many weaknesses.

— Posted By: bcamarda · Jun 13, 10:33 AM

I have to respectfully differ based on the past 40 years of American history, and what I had thought to be our shared values.

In 1968, after the most bitter Democratic primary season in generations, Hubert Humphrey was nominated for President. Many young activists who had supported McCarthy or the late RFK convinced themselves that there was no meaningful difference between Humphrey and Richard Nixon. Nixon was narrowly elected, and proceeded to implement the Southern strategy that halted racial progress and led to the Republican party’s domination of the South, and of American politics, for two generations.

In 1980, after Ted Kennedy came up short in his challenge to the incumbent Jimmy Carter, many Democratic activists sat out the election; some voted for the third party candidate John Anderson. The result was 12 years of Reagan and Bush, which packed federal regulatory agencies with corporate cronies and right-wing extremists, and began the transformation of America’s federal court system. The result is that poor and working people, Americans who care about environmental protection, and others whose values we presumably share, have far greater difficulty being heard as equals in the halls of justice. Meanwhile, by packing the National Labor Relations Board with individuals who consistently take the side of management against labor — and through his tax policies – Reagan accelerated the extraordinary growth of inequality in this country. Read the research on the links between poverty and health, and you will realize this is a matter of life and death.

Now we come to the year 2000. Again, many shortsighted people somehow convinced themselves that there was no meaningful difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush, the alleged “compassionate conservative.” I sure hope we would all agree on how well that turned out.

Now, let’s turn to this year’s election. I have been involved in plenty of elections. I know how passionate we all become. I started this election season supporting Edwards, not either Clinton or Obama. I am well aware that both candidates’ campaigns were imperfectly respectful of the others. I believe both candidates’ supporters have legitimate complaints – in roughly equal proportion. While I did not support Senator Clinton, I agree with those who have been shocked at the willingness of the media (and some Democrats) to engage in, or tolerate, truly contemptible sexism. By and large, I don’t believe Barack Obama has been personally guilty of this, any more than I believe Hillary Clinton was personally responsible for the racial resentments she may have benefited from in the later primaries. I’d add that, over the years, I’ve seen primaries more vicious than this one: primaries where worse things were said, and reconciliation would have been even more difficult.

As to the question of whether Barack Obama is qualified to be President. Let’s begin by saying that there is no way any candidate for president can claim with certainty to be qualified to be president. None of them have run an organization as complex, with as many moving parts, as the U.S. federal government. None of them have had their finger on the button, at 3 a.m., or any other time. The candidate in this year’s election with the clearest qualifications based on previous experience was Mitt Romney, but he also proved to be one of the most venal, demagogic, unprincipled individuals ever to run for President.

Having said all this, is there only one kind of experience that leads one to be considered qualified – experience in Congress or, possibly, as governor? I don’t think so. To me, Barack Obama’s experience as community organizer counts no less than Senator Clinton’s experience as Wal-Mart board member. His several years’ experience in the Illinois state legislature counts no less than Senator Clinton’s experience as first lady, where she saw crucial presidential decisions made at close hand, but had little or no responsibility for making them herself. You may disagree in emphasis, but you cannot fairly say Sen. Obama’s life and work experiences are worthless or irrelevant to the job at hand.

All three candidates – McCain, Clinton, and Obama – have been powerfully tested by being called upon to rapidly build and operate large national campaign organizations, run them efficiently and honestly, set strategies reflecting external reality, and respond to rapidly changing environments. These skills do relate, at least in part, to how they will be called upon to perform as President. It is clear to me that, of these three individuals, Obama is the one who has most clearly succeeded. That counts for something.

Now, finally, stepping back: what will be the impact of electing John McCain? Those who say that Roe survived other Republican presidents, to me, are simply fooling themselves. If you actually follow and read recent Supreme Court decisions, they make it clear that Roe is now hanging by a thread. Two more anti-choice justices will lead to a clear consensus on the court. If this is an issue you truly care about, do not fool yourself: McCain has been explicit that he will appoint justices like Alito and Roberts, who will certainly be prepared to overturn Roe. Once that happens, abortion will become a constant issue in each of the 50 states: you will be fighting these battles constantly, against mobilized right-wing state anti-abortion organizations. That will not contribute to anything progressive, I promise you.

But, far beyond abortion, McCain’s court appointments will make life worse for millions of ordinary Americans — as will the right-wingers he appoints to consolidate conservative control of the federal government for yet another decade. To take just one example: McCain is at his BEST when talking about global warming, but even there, his proposals for combating it are far weaker than anything either Obama or Clinton would seek to accomplish.

When it comes to foreign policy, Obama is not perfect: this country will not elect a president I consider perfect. But over the course of the past generation, Senator McCain has exhibited a willingness to depend on force that terrifies me. He has outlined policies that will do nothing to rebuild America’s respect, and are far more likely than Obama’s to lead to further war. Which of these two candidates, for example, do you believe is more likely to launch strikes on Iran over the next 12 months? I’d say it’s the one who sings “Bomb, Bomb Iran” to the tune of old Beach Boys songs. Whatever you think of the risks or threats posed by Iran, do you think McCain will fully consider the collateral issues, opportunity costs, and long-term damage to America that could be caused by such an attack? Do you truly think Obama would NOT consider those issues? When it comes to making these decisions, does Senator McCain’s temperament (and voting record) not concern you at all? Does Senator Obama’s even, measured temperament not appeal to you at all?

Please, I beg you to step back from the experience of the past few months, and objectively consider the results of electing Senator McCain. Please consider the future: mine, your own, and that of us all. Thank you.

— Posted By: NeverForget · Jun 13, 11:04 AM

We are unfortunately stuck with two absolutely awful choices for POTUS this year.
Obama’s record of disenfranchising and suppressing voters’ rights, from Chicago to the DNC, though, is that which worries me more than McCain’s record, especially if McCain is held in check by a Democratic Congress.
I’ll be working for all the down ticket Democrats, but can’t and won’t ever support Sen. Obama, no matter the threats or pleas.
Thank you.

— Posted By: ChrisB · Jun 13, 11:08 AM

o man not iowa!!! Next thing you know the Texans won’t endorse Obama, either, and then where will we be?
“John McCain is an honorable man” unless you consider support for torture (of OTHER, frequently brown people) dishonorable. “He is good personal friends with Hillary Clinton”, an important characteristic for presidents. “He is qualified to be president”, as much as anyone else who’s an American citizen over 35. “He served our country” in an incredibly popular, very necessary war. “He is right on immigration” lol iowa. “Right on global warming” because god knows screaming the word “MARKETS” over and over will solve everything. “He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned Marriage Equality”, except it actually did ban it, and he would support a ban if the authority over marriages was moved from the states to the federal government.

But thanks, we appreciate your boneheaded 15 minutes in the spotlight.

— Posted By: Naveen · Jun 13, 11:43 AM

If enough Hillary supporters are as logically ill-equipped as you are, then this country deserves the another term of Bush.

— Posted By: Patty · Jun 13, 12:04 PM

I am saddened by not having Hillary to look forward to. She would have been the hardest-working President of all time. I feel as though I have nothing to look forward to. I only hope she stays viable in some way – because we need her. I don’t know what I am going to do regarding voting. However, I do know this: If he chooses a woman for VP and it is not Hillary and especially if it is Claire McCaskill – I will definitely writing in Hillary’s name. I only hope he would not humiliate her by doing so.

— Posted By: mo · Jun 13, 12:54 PM

A vote for Obama is a vote for socialism – read a little bit. I live in the Chicago area – Obama only helps friends, not the entire constituency.

Axelrod helped a lot though – electric utilities up 100% for some of us.

— Posted By: Justin · Jun 13, 01:14 PM

I agree with Cody.

Obamabots will call me ignorant, racist, and bitter. But as a proud, life-long Democrat, I will not vote for Obama. He, with the help of the Obamabots in the media, ran the dirtiest, most mean-spirited campaign I’ve ever seen. And every time Hillary or Bill fought back, they were labeled “racists”. Obama has no leadership experience; he has not authored a single significant piece of legislation in his Senate tenure. If he wanted to make some changes, he could have started by “working” at his current job (yes, he’s supposed to be working in the Senate right now). Quite simply, Obama doesn’t deserve to be President. McCain’s name is all over significant legislation. He gave 5+ years of his life to his country in a POW camp. I don’t agree with several of his policies, but the man has EARNED the White House nod.

— Posted By: TJG · Jun 13, 02:34 PM

I believe that any true Hillary Clinton supporter would NEVER support BO. Hillary cared about the people, BO only cares about power. Go back and read how Hitler got into power, then look at BO again.
Hillary or McCaon 08

— Posted By: fenster · Jun 13, 03:06 PM

“hardwork” and “overwith” are not words, you silly, silly sore loser.

Congratulations on destroying any future you had in politics!

— Posted By: DaddysDarlin · Jun 13, 03:10 PM

Way to stand up for democracy!
If you knew anything you would know that Roe v Wade will not be overturned, we do have a congress that it would have to pass through, a democratic congress. It is totally impossible that it will ever be overturned. These are just scare tactics by the Obama campaign to get you to their side.
Do your homework. Hillary still is the best candidate the democratic party has ever had, and the most popular, they chose to go with a man that did not win the popular vote, and gave Hillary’s delegates to BO, you call that democratic? If it had been the other way around how would you feel? 18 million voices cannot be silenced, much as BO’s camp would like. We are committed to making changes in the DNC and all Americans will benefit.
It isn’t our fault that we are now voting for McCain, had the DNC nominated the most popular candidate, we would still be voting democrat. They chose to go with a first term senator, who has questionable personal ties, questionable religious ties, questionable behavior, and absolutely no experience. We may never know why, but I would assume it has something to do with money, it usually does.
Yes, John McCain will become our president, he is the lesser of two evils. BO is way to scary to even be considered for the highest job in our country.
We had the only candidate who could beat McCain and the DNC chose not to endorse her, no matter what the American peoples votes said. We want our votes to count, but they did not however, in November the DNC and the democratic party will get a rude awakening.
Puma Democrat
People United Means Action
blog.pumapac.org

— Posted By: Gracie · Jun 13, 03:41 PM

OMG, how stupid can you get!

— Posted By: oregonvoter · Jun 13, 04:15 PM

It is not out of spite that I will not vote for Obama, I truly dont trust him, and I would vote for almost any democrat, but never for Obama. He will not win anyway, so my vote isnt going to matter much.

— Posted By: Leon · Jun 13, 04:50 PM

SUPREME COURT!!!!!!!!!!!!

— Posted By: Monty · Jun 13, 05:12 PM

yeah, Supreme Court. We need more judges like Alito and Roberts!!!!!

— Posted By: LAMusing · Jun 13, 08:28 PM

Well said. BRAVO.

PUMA!!!

— Posted By: Vicious Obamabots · Jun 14, 12:06 AM

The Obamabots make the Freepers look downright friendly by comparison. They have nothing to say about their candidate. All they can do is spew hate and throw tantrums at people who dare not to vote for their Messiah.

How is Obama going to transform politics when his followers are a cult of hate? Hate for Clinton and her supporters, hate for McCain and his suppporters, hate for Nader and McKinney and their supporters. All hate,all the time.

— Posted By: Jeremy B. · Jun 14, 12:46 AM

McCain is more qualified to be Commander in Chief than Obama. He is an excellent choice.

— Posted By: Clinton 08 · Jun 14, 07:22 PM

Umm, several of you are somewhat confused about the nature of our divided government. To wit: “If you knew anything you would know that Roe v Wade will not be overturned, we do have a congress that it would have to pass through, a democratic congress. It is totally impossible that it will ever be overturned. These are just scare tactics by the Obama campaign to get you to their side.” Actually, these aren’t just scare tactics: if the Supreme Court overrules Roe, it’s GONE. Congressional opposition to the decision (or even a Presidential desire to keep the controversy alive) will matter not at ALL. Supreme Court decisions simply do not pass through Congress. That is, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the “decider.” If the Supreme Court determines that neither the Due Process clause nor the Equal Protection clause guarantee abortion rights, then individual states will be quite free to outlaw abortion. SO, given that 3-4 Justices will almost certainly be retiring during the next term and that McCain has declared his admiration for Roberts and his conservative ilk on the Court, if you value reproductive rights you’re making a serious, serious mistake if you support McCain over Obama (our mutual disappointment in HRC’s loss notwithstanding).

— Posted By: john · Jun 14, 11:46 PM

this is one of the most depressing opinions pieces on this subject that I have read. You are entitled to back whoever you wish, and no doubt john mccain is a great american servant. But to do so by clearly misstating the facts of a campaign that to a large degree was degraded and made personal by an increasingly desperate hilary clinton is both deeply frustrating and suspicious. There are far more fruitful grounds of debate on Obama’s abilities than to focus over who ran the dirtier campaign.

— Posted By: DebbieKat · Jun 15, 12:56 AM

NADER is the only choice now for president. I was not either an Obama or a Clinton supporter throughout this election. I’m now on my 3rd candidate. The Democratic party, of which I’ve been a member my entire voting life, no longer represents me. And you folks are right when you say Obama and Clinton are identical on policies, because they are. And that’s not a positive for me. And those of you who said Obama is too far left? What are you smoking? He’s not progressive at ALL. His voting record is the same as Clinton’s. And mostly, that means he’s been ABSENT.

Funny. Congressman Kucinich didn’t seem to have a problem making it to his votes. But I digress…

There were a couple of great Democrats who were running this year. I think Clinton and Obama were the worst of ALL of them. Neither one has a progressive history of voting. Neither one would support gay marriage. Neither one would get us out of Iraq immediately. Neither one will get us universal single-payer health care. Neither one will get lobbyists out of our government. And neither one would advocate more open ballot access rules. So much for health competition. If you vote this year for Obama or McCain, you are voting for the status quo. I refuse to vote the lesser of two evils this year.

I suggest you all start looking towards third party candidates if you ever want to get control of the government back from the corporations that own us now.

Will Obama support Bush being impeached? Will McCain? STOP AND THINK.

— Posted By: Hunter · Jun 15, 01:32 PM

Cody has every right to decide whom to vote for based on his perception of the way the Obama campaign treated Hillary Clinton. In my opinion, the way that a candidate’s campaign behaves is a reflection of the candidate. If Obama did not believe in the work that his surrogates were doing, then he should have made them stop. The continued attacks on Hillary could only have meant that Obama supported them, and that goes to show his character. While a candidate’s policies are important to me, his or her character is even more important. Policies change depending on circumstances. However, the character of an individual is what drives a man or woman to do certain things. That being said, when Hillary surrogates or McCain surrogates sling mud, this opinion of mine applies across the board.

It seems to me that most Obama supporters support him, because they don’t like Bush. The rhetoric that we hear is about “change.” Change is good if it’s for the better. Change for the sake of change … not so good. I have not heard ANY specifics coming from Obama about how his changes (whatever they may be) are going to make our lives better.

As far as policies are concerned, I care about one thing the most. IF Obama becomes president, each of us will have less money as we pay more taxes. Yeah, so Obama wants to increase tax on corporate profits and the rich. Gee, guess what? The rich can afford to pay more taxes. And corporations? They will just pass the tax increases the following year down to the consumers (like you and me). So we will end up having less money to pay for the higher cost of goods.

Universal health care is great. I’d love to have free health care. But is it really free? Again, we will see tax increases in order to support any sort of universal health care plan. So on the surface, universal health care sounds great. But dig deeper, and we need to ask ourselves if we will be happy paying more taxes to fund a universal health care system. People who are going to get stuck with the bill here … it will be the middle class. Like I noted before, the rich can afford to pay more taxes. A good number of the poor aren’t paying taxes anyway. So the middle class will be the one that suffers the most.

At the end of he day, if Obama is elected, most Americans will have less money in their pockets. And that’s why I am not voting for Obama.

— Posted By: s katz · Jun 15, 06:20 PM

Vote for McCain, and you had best be prepared to send yourself and kids to die defending oil companies in the Mid-East.

Vote McCain and die; don’t expect any help: John McCain does not believe in helping his fellow vets.

# McCain has repeatedly voted against amendments in the Senate that would have…covered such important services as improving care at veterans’ hospitals, providing mental health services to soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder and substance abuse problems. [2006 Senate Vote #7, 2/2/2006]

# In 2006, McCain voted against the Kerry amendment that would eliminate increased fees and co-payments for veterans in the TRICARE health care program by raising the discretionary spending limit by approximately $10 billion. The provisions would have been fully offset by eliminating creating corporate tax breaks. [2006 Senate Vote #67, 3/16/2006]

# McCain was one of only 13 Republicans to vote against an amendment that added over $400 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans. [2006 Senate Vote #98, 4/26/2006]

# McCain voted against increasing funding for veterans health care by $2.8 billion in 2006. [2005 Senate Vote #55, 3/16/2005]

# McCain joined his Republican Senate cohorts in opposing exempting all military personnel and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy cases. [2005 Senate Vote #13, 3/1/2005]

# McCain opposed an amendment that would reduce from 60 to 55 the age at which certain members of the National Guard and Army reserves could receive retirement benefits. [2004 Senate Vote #136, 6/23/2004]

# Senator McCain opposed $322 million in funding for “battlefield clearance and safety equipment for U.S. troops in Iraq.” A reduction in Iraqi reconstruction funds would have funded the additional protection for troops in the battlefield. [2003 Senate Vote #376, 10/2/2003]

# McCain voted against an amendment that would increase spending on the veterans health care program TRICARE by $20.3 billion over 10 years to members of the National Guard and Reserves. The increase would be offset by a reduction in tax cuts. [2003 Senate Vote #81, 3/25/2003]

# McCain opposed an amendment that would have increased veterans spending by $13 billion from 1997-2002 to be offset by closing corporate tax preferences and reinstating expired taxes. [1996 Senate Vote #115, 5/16/1996]

Women had best give their right to choose, as John McCain doesn’t support that, either.

Go. Vote for McCain.

Suffer the consequences of a man who cannot tell the difference between Sunni and Shia. Make him commander in chief.

Elect a man who admits he doesn’t understand the economy.

http://mccainsource.com/economy?id=0001

Go ahead.

Suffer the consequences.

— Posted By: TI · Jun 15, 08:48 PM

McCain 08! Lets get together now and vote for McCain. We can take it all back in four years…..after we dump the piece of garbage Obama!

— Posted By: Monty · Jun 16, 12:46 PM

“Suffer the consequences of a man who cannot tell the difference between Sunni and Shia. Make him commander in chief.” At least he knows what language they speak in Afghanistan, unlike Obama.

— Posted By: Just a Couple of Questions · Jun 16, 11:39 PM

Obama’s comments about attacking Al-Qaeda bases in Pakistan (not invading Pakistan two totally different things) sparked riots? When the hell was this? And when did Obama surrogates refer to Hillary as Glenn Close? And I don’t believe that he said he was unqualified to be President when he won his senate seat, he said that he believes you have to be ready for a job before you apply (or something of that nature) and obviously he felt like he was ready and a few million people did too. Your endorsment would mean so much more if you actually took the time to check your facts…..

— Posted By: CountryBeforeParty · Jun 18, 05:28 PM

McCain will not be able to overturn Roe vs Wade even if he wants too. I hate how Obama supporters don’t see why the larger half of voters can’t switch sides so quickly. Obama ran a mean-spirited, media endorsed campaign.

Maybe if he did ANYTHING at all for Change in the senate I’d vote for him, now he is saying he is the only candidate who can bring real change. I put country before party, and John McCain will be the better president.

On top of that he won the democratic nomination in a way so far from being close to democratic. More people voted for Hillary, and she won 90% of the states which will actually be blue in november. The candidate who clearly is stronger, who won the battleground states and the popular vote seems to have lost by a long shot. That’s real democratic. Obama won by winning red states and caucuses .
Hillary or McCain

— Posted By: CountryBeforeParty · Jun 18, 05:29 PM

McCain will not be able to overturn Roe vs Wade even if he wants too. I hate how Obama supporters don’t see why the larger half of voters can’t switch sides so quickly. Obama ran a mean-spirited, media endorsed campaign.

Maybe if he did ANYTHING at all for Change in the senate I’d vote for him, now he is saying he is the only candidate who can bring real change. I put country before party, and John McCain will be the better president.

On top of that he won the democratic nomination in a way so far from being close to democratic. More people voted for Hillary, and she won 90% of the states which will actually be blue in november. The candidate who clearly is stronger, who won the battleground states and the popular vote seems to have lost by a long shot. That’s real democratic. Obama won by winning red states and caucuses .

Hillary or McCain

— Posted By: maryb · Jun 18, 10:54 PM

wow…i sure hope you’re paying for your own educations. your parents otherwise have wasted their money. but i guess if you aren’t really a Democrat, it doesn’t matter where you end up.

PS; a precinct captain is NOT a staffer, it’s a member of your community. i was called horrific things by clinton supporters. think i’d have stopped to consider that if she’d have WON the nomination?? not a chance!!!

— Posted By: USAPatriot · Jun 21, 03:34 AM

I’d rather vote for a true patriot than a ???

John McCain 2008!

— Posted By: BARB · Jul 7, 07:48 AM

Why are gays supporting a man who was afraid to be photographed with the San Francisco politician because that politician supported same sex marriage, and sent a self-hating “ex-gay” who was “saved by Jesus” to pander to the homophobic Black church members in SC at a concert/rally for Obama?

— Posted By: Ernest Wilkins · Aug 21, 04:05 AM

nailing monoclinous trifoliolate unpicaresque glebeless promonopoly archivolt purfler
<a href= http://www.lewa.org/ >Lewa Wildlife Conservancy</a> http://www.websitetoolbox.com/
<a href= http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/27/regan.prosecution.arguments/ >Prosecution paints chronology of FBI probe</a> http://www.academychild.com/
<a href= http://www.deaconess-healthcare.com/ >Deaconess Hospital</a> http://www.chnmus.net/Template/home/chnmuse/index.html
<a href= http://www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/renaissance/ >Renaissance Personalities</a> http://www.centralmassappraisals.com

— Posted By: Jacob Lara · Aug 21, 03:09 PM

nailing monoclinous trifoliolate unpicaresque glebeless promonopoly archivolt purfler
<a href= http://cnn.com/2002/US/10/29/moscow.theater.raid.ap/ >Oklahoma man feared dead in Moscow siege</a> http://www.wildirisfolkfestival.org/
<a href= http://www.ed.uab.edu/SOEweb/readrec/ >U.S. – Alabama – Birmingham</a> http://warr.org/brian.html
<a href= http://www.capotestadiving.de >Diving School Capo Testa</a> http://www.fayettesheriffwv.net/
<a href= http://www.panpacific.com/Palau/Overview.html >Palau Pacific Resort</a> http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9911/14/turkey.quake.01/index.html

— Posted By: xax · Aug 21, 07:01 PM

My apologies:

Thier= they’re

— Posted By: David · Aug 26, 05:24 PM

John McCain is the worst republican choice for president. Maverick, my ass. This gut sold out his fellow POW’s and now declares himself a hero. What a crock of horse shit. I hope Obama kicks his butt in the upcoming election. Have a nice day you racist political party losers and lovers