I guess I'm trying to base my vote on my best guess for what may follow in an Obama or McCain presidency. I've been batting it around in my head and come up with a few things.

1) With both McCain and Obama, you will get some sort of comprehensive immigration package through. There would be differences between the two, but something will happen with either administration and a Democratic Congress. Indeed, compromising on increased border security in order to get a deal done is exactly the sort of compromise I expect from Obama, which would put him close to the current McCain position.

2) McCain will continue the antagonist type of foreign policy that Bush has set with us vs. them and good vs. evil. I just hear far too little from him about other ways to handle foreign relations other than threatening and cajoling. A couple of his bad guy picks will be genuine bad guys and therefore it will be the best approach for them. However, such local successes will come with continuing longterm drawbacks as the next administration deals with the inevitable backlashes; i.e., he will deal well with some enemies and create new enemies in the process. I expect Obama's foreign policy to be more comprehensive and only reveal its true merit in 10-15 years.

3) McCain will continue to appoint SCOTUS judges, should he have the opportunity, that will erode Roe v. Wade. This seems a fairly stark difference between the two.

4) Both candidates would move in the direction of alternate energy, but I expect Obama to be far more aggressive. McCain will make some moves in that direction, but generally think of it as the long term plan for several decades. Obama will attempt to make it the medium term future.

5) Obama's health care changes will not be truly national coverage as he is still trying to work with the current system and this is the sort of area where he will compromise for some positive gains. But this expansion of health care will be greater than with McCain.

6) Taxes will go up on the wealthy in the short term with Obama, and perhaps in the long term with McCain after he has to do the numbers himself and is forced to pull a Bush, Sr. As a result Obama will do a bit better with the deficit since he's already facing reality. I really have no ideas on how each will attempt to control spending. I guess I don't expect large cuts from either.

7) Both candidates will withdraw the majority of forces from Iraq by 2011. McCain will fight to keep several large bases in Iraq with many thousands of troops with which to threaten other countries in the area. Obama would keep just one or two smaller presences if he could cut the deal because some generals will tell him how useful such a base would be and he will go with a small presence.

And that's my best guesses on what the Presidencies would mean on a practical level. Overall, I prefer the scenario with Obama, so he will get my vote. As I think through it, Obama's (guessed at by me) scenario is far closer to what Clinton was fighting for and so it makes sense to me for a Clinton supporter to cast their vote in Obama's direction.

After all, the value of experience is in knowing how to accomplish goals. Experience in and of itself is not a great value in a political leader. It's like courage in a terrorist. A good thing put to horrible purposes. Similarly, it is the way such experience can be used to make dreams into reality that is of great value. So choosing a McCain who would use his experience to hold back most of Clinton's very goals values experience with no purpose.

(It'll be fun to see how completely wrong my guesses above are in 4 years time.)

I guess I'm trying to base my vote on my best guess for what may follow in an Obama or McCain presidency. I've been batting it around in my head and come up with a few things.

1) With both McCain and Obama, you will get some sort of comprehensive immigration package through. There would be differences between the two, but something will happen with either administration and a Democratic Congress. Indeed, compromising on increased border security in order to get a deal done is exactly the sort of compromise I expect from Obama, which would put him close to the current McCain position.

2) McCain will continue the antagonist type of foreign policy that Bush has set with us vs. them and good vs. evil. I just hear far too little from him about other ways to handle foreign relations other than threatening and cajoling. A couple of his bad guy picks will be genuine bad guys and therefore it will be the best approach for them. However, such local successes will come with continuing longterm drawbacks as the next administration deals with the inevitable backlashes; i.e., he will deal well with some enemies and create new enemies in the process. I expect Obama's foreign policy to be more comprehensive and only reveal its true merit in 10-15 years.

3) McCain will continue to appoint SCOTUS judges, should he have the opportunity, that will erode Roe v. Wade. This seems a fairly stark difference between the two.

4) Both candidates would move in the direction of alternate energy, but I expect Obama to be far more aggressive. McCain will make some moves in that direction, but generally think of it as the long term plan for several decades. Obama will attempt to make it the medium term future.

5) Obama's health care changes will not be truly national coverage as he is still trying to work with the current system and this is the sort of area where he will compromise for some positive gains. But this expansion of health care will be greater than with McCain.

6) Taxes will go up on the wealthy in the short term with Obama, and perhaps in the long term with McCain after he has to do the numbers himself and is forced to pull a Bush, Sr. As a result Obama will do a bit better with the deficit since he's already facing reality. I really have no ideas on how each will attempt to control spending. I guess I don't expect large cuts from either.

7) Both candidates will withdraw the majority of forces from Iraq by 2011. McCain will fight to keep several large bases in Iraq with many thousands of troops with which to threaten other countries in the area. Obama would keep just one or two smaller presences if he could cut the deal because some generals will tell him how useful such a base would be and he will go with a small presence.

And that's my best guesses on what the Presidencies would mean on a practical level. Overall, I prefer the scenario with Obama, so he will get my vote. As I think through it, Obama's (guessed at by me) scenario is far closer to what Clinton was fighting for and so it makes sense to me for a Clinton supporter to cast their vote in Obama's direction.

After all, the value of experience is in knowing how to accomplish goals. Experience in and of itself is not a great value in a political leader. It's like courage in a terrorist. A good thing put to horrible purposes. Similarly, it is the way such experience can be used to make dreams into reality that is of great value. So choosing a McCain who would use his experience to hold back most of Clinton's very goals values experience with no purpose.

(It'll be fun to see how completely wrong my guesses above are in 4 years time.)

After all, I could easily list at LEAST half a dozen personality traits of GWB that have proven to be detrimental, and could probably even give a plausible explanation of how certain traits of his have led him to make certain policy decisions that no one could have foreseen in 2000 (anyone remember that he said that he wouldn't do any nation building?)

So these things are hugely important. You can't just assume that you're voting for the platform if you don't know if the candidate has any likelihood at all of achieving any of its planks, or even if he really intends to try (vs. just saying certain things to appease parts of the base or to pander.)

Of course if there's one or more issue on which you disagree strongly with a candidate, then those might be dealbreakers even if you prefer his/her character and feel he/she is a more skilled or experienced leader; but most people tend to favor a mix of some of the center left positions and some center right, and have to compromise on some of them anyway (since no one candidate or party will exactly match up with each voter's views.)

After all, I could easily list at LEAST half a dozen personality traits of GWB that have proven to be detrimental, and could probably even give a plausible explanation of how certain traits of his have led him to make certain policy decisions that no one could have foreseen in 2000 (anyone remember that he said that he wouldn't do any nation building?)

So these things are hugely important. You can't just assume that you're voting for the platform if you don't know if the candidate has any likelihood at all of achieving any of its planks, or even if he really intends to try (vs. just saying certain things to appease parts of the base or to pander.)

Of course if there's one or more issue on which you disagree strongly with a candidate, then those might be dealbreakers even if you prefer his/her character and feel he/she is a more skilled or experienced leader; but most people tend to favor a mix of some of the center left positions and some center right, and have to compromise on some of them anyway (since no one candidate or party will exactly match up with each voter's views.)

Of course he has heard all of the rightwing crap that has given him a somewhat distorted view of Obama. Half of it is lies and the other half are gross distortions, but it is an opinion shaped by that information.

Would it change his mind if he knew that McCain cheated on his first wife numerous times even though she was disabled. Would him help him understand the charactor of John McCain to know that he lied to Cindy about his age when they first met. Would it help him understand John McCain's charactor to know that he was engaged to Cindy before he divorced his first wife. Would it help him better understand John McCain better to know that the tourchers he endored in Vietnam are the same enhanced interrogation techniques that he is allow the Bush administration to practice in Guantanomo (something he should know better about). Would it help him to know that Cindy McCain stole drugs from the non-profit she was on the board for, and the only reason she avoided felony charges is because of her family contacts? Would it help him to know that McCain's staff is so full of paid off lobbyists representing countries other than ours, that his chief international advisor has received $800,000 over the past 4 years representing the country of Georgia? Gosh, if he had been president, his swagger during the crisis could have led us to a world war over a punk state. Would it help him to know that a majority of his senatorial colleages (while they acknowledge his service) understand what a flaming hot head he is and wouldn't want him being able to press the red button. Would it help him to know that McCain has flipped on every single major issue over the past 8 years. He actually had the audacity to vote agains his own immigration legislation when it came onto the Senate. Would it help him to know that this Maverick actually voted with George Bush 95% of the time during last year's congress. Would it help him to know that this environmentally sensitive Senator has 0% rating from the League of Conservation voters. That's right, not one environmentally favorable vote during the whole Congress. Would it help him to know that he voted down the tax credit for alternative energy. Would it help him to know that this veteran wouldn't support bi-partisan legislation updating veterans benefits? Even when there was enough bipartisan support to overturn a Bush veto?

I could make up stuff too, if you wanted to measure up to the unverifiable standards set by the righwing hack 527 jobs. But John McCain is such a target rich opportunity. You see Amiable buyers don't buy based on logic, they base their decisions on a gut decision on who they like. That is why 30% of the population still thinks W has done a great job.

This is not to knock Boudica's decision. It is his and he has a right to it. It is just to recognize that he is part of the 30% of the population that bases their decision on who they like as person. You can argue the facts until you are blue in the face and it won't change a thing. Fortunately, these people are statistically split between the two parties equally, so they weigh each other out.

Of course he has heard all of the rightwing crap that has given him a somewhat distorted view of Obama. Half of it is lies and the other half are gross distortions, but it is an opinion shaped by that information.

Would it change his mind if he knew that McCain cheated on his first wife numerous times even though she was disabled. Would him help him understand the charactor of John McCain to know that he lied to Cindy about his age when they first met. Would it help him understand John McCain's charactor to know that he was engaged to Cindy before he divorced his first wife. Would it help him better understand John McCain better to know that the tourchers he endored in Vietnam are the same enhanced interrogation techniques that he is allow the Bush administration to practice in Guantanomo (something he should know better about). Would it help him to know that Cindy McCain stole drugs from the non-profit she was on the board for, and the only reason she avoided felony charges is because of her family contacts? Would it help him to know that McCain's staff is so full of paid off lobbyists representing countries other than ours, that his chief international advisor has received $800,000 over the past 4 years representing the country of Georgia? Gosh, if he had been president, his swagger during the crisis could have led us to a world war over a punk state. Would it help him to know that a majority of his senatorial colleages (while they acknowledge his service) understand what a flaming hot head he is and wouldn't want him being able to press the red button. Would it help him to know that McCain has flipped on every single major issue over the past 8 years. He actually had the audacity to vote agains his own immigration legislation when it came onto the Senate. Would it help him to know that this Maverick actually voted with George Bush 95% of the time during last year's congress. Would it help him to know that this environmentally sensitive Senator has 0% rating from the League of Conservation voters. That's right, not one environmentally favorable vote during the whole Congress. Would it help him to know that he voted down the tax credit for alternative energy. Would it help him to know that this veteran wouldn't support bi-partisan legislation updating veterans benefits? Even when there was enough bipartisan support to overturn a Bush veto?

I could make up stuff too, if you wanted to measure up to the unverifiable standards set by the righwing hack 527 jobs. But John McCain is such a target rich opportunity. You see Amiable buyers don't buy based on logic, they base their decisions on a gut decision on who they like. That is why 30% of the population still thinks W has done a great job.

This is not to knock Boudica's decision. It is his and he has a right to it. It is just to recognize that he is part of the 30% of the population that bases their decision on who they like as person. You can argue the facts until you are blue in the face and it won't change a thing. Fortunately, these people are statistically split between the two parties equally, so they weigh each other out.

But the flip side of this is that a common refrain among *some* NObama democrats is that Obama falls short of a standard that they are simply not holding McCain or Clinton to. He alone can't change his positions, attack his opponents, or misspeak without it revealing some fatal flaw in his character that it does not when McCain or Clinton do the same. So, I don't think it's pushing the limits of plausibility to suggest that the reason that the black candidate has to work twice as hard to convince *some* white democrats that he is as deserving as the white candidates he's running against might have something to do with race.

But, yes, of course, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to find him wanting.

But the flip side of this is that a common refrain among *some* NObama democrats is that Obama falls short of a standard that they are simply not holding McCain or Clinton to. He alone can't change his positions, attack his opponents, or misspeak without it revealing some fatal flaw in his character that it does not when McCain or Clinton do the same. So, I don't think it's pushing the limits of plausibility to suggest that the reason that the black candidate has to work twice as hard to convince *some* white democrats that he is as deserving as the white candidates he's running against might have something to do with race.

But, yes, of course, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to find him wanting.

I hear you loud and clear.

But I'm sure you know that on all those issues you don't care about, there are plenty of other people who care. And they've chosen sides. And they're loud about it .

And they're not gonna go away.

Any more than you are.

I hear you loud and clear.

But I'm sure you know that on all those issues you don't care about, there are plenty of other people who care. And they've chosen sides. And they're loud about it .

And they're not gonna go away.

Any more than you are.

The facts are that in 1980 Regan Democrats migrated to Reagan on promises of economics and not on social issues. As the GOP failed them the last 8 years they have indeed returned to the fold.

I am a Reagan Democrat. There are many like us. Many who do not care for social issues but are much more concerned about other issues that are of concern to most Americans. Many of us have Left the GOP and returned to the Democrats only to find that……………….Listen to me……………Listen.

We dont give a flying flip about abortion, Gay rights, seperation of church and state, Religion or all of these emotionally charged issues.

We care about food, and gasoline, and paychecks and trade barriers. We care about our lawns, our houses, our hometowns, our families. We care about immigration and keeping our jobs safe from Illegals.

We care. We just dont care about the same things that you care about. That is what makes us Reagan Democrats and its what has betrayed us.

Both parties have run off on a tangent about social and emotional issues when what we really care about is bread and butter. Not Hope and faith.

Hope and faith doesnt feed the family.

The facts are that in 1980 Regan Democrats migrated to Reagan on promises of economics and not on social issues. As the GOP failed them the last 8 years they have indeed returned to the fold.

I am a Reagan Democrat. There are many like us. Many who do not care for social issues but are much more concerned about other issues that are of concern to most Americans. Many of us have Left the GOP and returned to the Democrats only to find that……………….Listen to me……………Listen.

We dont give a flying flip about abortion, Gay rights, seperation of church and state, Religion or all of these emotionally charged issues.

We care about food, and gasoline, and paychecks and trade barriers. We care about our lawns, our houses, our hometowns, our families. We care about immigration and keeping our jobs safe from Illegals.

We care. We just dont care about the same things that you care about. That is what makes us Reagan Democrats and its what has betrayed us.

Both parties have run off on a tangent about social and emotional issues when what we really care about is bread and butter. Not Hope and faith.

Hope and faith doesnt feed the family.

If you're going to go all third party on us, why not support Jazz's choice, Bob Barr.

Come on–make somebody on this thread happy! ; )

If you're going to go all third party on us, why not support Jazz's choice, Bob Barr.

Come on–make somebody on this thread happy! ; )

And words just fail me if thinking that there are some things we just need to work together on makes someone a socialist. That kind of attitude is just plain nuts.

And words just fail me if thinking that there are some things we just need to work together on makes someone a socialist. That kind of attitude is just plain nuts.

I also think that you are perfectly valid for feeling the way you do. I might disagree with you on some aspects and maybe on the overall assessment, but I disagree with a lot of people about their various beliefs and choices. I don't think that you should be attacked for being wrong-headed or incorrect in your decisionmaking process. You don't like Obama, fair enough. Nothing anyone says on this site is going to make you change your mind, I think.

I also think that you are perfectly valid for feeling the way you do. I might disagree with you on some aspects and maybe on the overall assessment, but I disagree with a lot of people about their various beliefs and choices. I don't think that you should be attacked for being wrong-headed or incorrect in your decisionmaking process. You don't like Obama, fair enough. Nothing anyone says on this site is going to make you change your mind, I think.

Maybe the socialist thing was pushing. I do think his idea of change will be to make the country more socialist and I don't think that's a good thing.

Maybe the socialist thing was pushing. I do think his idea of change will be to make the country more socialist and I don't think that's a good thing.

Sexist – calling a reporter sweety, saying Hillary “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”

Pretty f'ing weak there. Come back when you got some real dirt.

180 degree turn – saying he wouldn't run for President when he won his Senate seat, accepting public campaign financing, FISA

I'll grant you FISA and the Senate thing…

Socialist – “In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and oganizations.”

This is truly asinine. By this definition supporting ANY part of government is socialist.

Sexist – calling a reporter sweety, saying Hillary “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”

Pretty f'ing weak there. Come back when you got some real dirt.

180 degree turn – saying he wouldn't run for President when he won his Senate seat, accepting public campaign financing, FISA

I'll grant you FISA and the Senate thing…

Socialist – “In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and oganizations.”

This is truly asinine. By this definition supporting ANY part of government is socialist.

Instead of attacking just Obama, why don't you tell us what's good about McCain?

Make a positive case.

Instead of attacking just Obama, why don't you tell us what's good about McCain?

Make a positive case.

Sexist – calling a reporter sweety, saying Hillary “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”

180 degree turn – saying he wouldn't run for President when he won his Senate seat, accepting public campaign financing, FISA,

Socialist – “In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and oganizations.”

I'm no longer a Democrat. I now consider myself an independent or a reasonable if there only were such a party.

Sexist – calling a reporter sweety, saying Hillary “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”

180 degree turn – saying he wouldn't run for President when he won his Senate seat, accepting public campaign financing, FISA,

Socialist – “In America,” Obama says, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and oganizations.”

I'm no longer a Democrat. I now consider myself an independent or a reasonable if there only were such a party.