Obama vs. McCain: Why I’m Back on the Fence
This morning, I wrote at my own blog that I’ve pulled the Obama sticker off of my truck; that although I’m not suddenly a McCain supporter, I can no longer be counted in the Obama column.
In short, that I’m back on the fence.
This is causing a bit of consternation, some of which appears to be driven by some rather offensive (to me) assumptions (I’m a woman, and therefore must subject to the Palin hype. Or I’m an independent and therefore must falling for McCain’s superficial reach toward the center). And there have been a few genuinely curious queries, in both comments and email.
So I’ll take a shot at what’s going on in my independent, suburban, white, female mind.
First off — saying that the Obama sticker has come down does not mean I’ve replaced it with McCain’s. What it does signify, though, is that I’m back at square one, and I’m ready to listen to them both.
And yes, part of the reason I’m listening to McCain is Palin. But it has nothing to do with her gender, or her baby, or her hunting. It does, however, have something to do with her newness to Washington — a factor I also see in Barack Obama’s favor, as it happens.
I’m not drinking any Kool-Aid here. Did she single-handedly slay The Bridge To Nowhere dragon? Nope, she didn’t. Did she brave the dangerous “we don’t need no stinkin’ earmarks” thicket? Nope, she didn’t do that either…. and yes, I have a problem how the McCain campaign’s presenting both of those.
What about her religion, you say? Yes, she’s a social conservative to the Nth degree — but as far as I’m concerned, that only matters if she thinks her views should be translated to national policy. Her record (as opposed to the rhetoric) indicates that she won’t. Since this is of enormous importance to me, it’s an area on which I’m intensely focused.
Aside from all that, though, the Palin pick told me that McCain is not afraid to think all the way out of the box — at a time when Barack Obama seems to be fully inside it.
Was it reckless? I’m not sure, frankly. She is indeed inexperienced, but she’s not the utter neophyte her opposition is painting, either. Yes, it could have been a coldly cynical, partisan move by McCain, but I could care less about the politics of the pick. Furthermore, I’m not ready to pass judgment on her ability to lead. Simply because we haven’t yet heard her positions doesn’t invalidate them.
It’s worth pointing out, though, that if the McCain campaign keeps her totally wrapped up, and those positions are never articulated, then his ticket is not vote-worthy at all. But it’s far too early to know this, imho.
Meanwhile, the Barack Obama I embraced during the primaries seems to have disappeared. As I wrote in a comment at my blog:
His approaches to problems were only superficially related to standard Democratic policy prescriptions, in that they were grounded on the people as primary to any solution, and a government that was there to support their efforts.
The Barack Obama of the primaries hit those themes hard, again and again. While many of his policies sounded the same, the underlying principles made him very different, in my eyes. And he was a pragmatist to boot.
But the Obama of the primaries seems to have disappeared. I understood why he was so slow to acknowledge the success of the surge, but I didn’t like the pure politics of it. I understand why he’s sounded populism themes, but I didn’t like the reactionism.
And I even understand why he’s had to back off of any possible mention of a negative in relation to the Clinton years… but again, it’s pure partisan politicking.
In short, the playing field looks pretty even to me just now.
Both of the major party tickets have pluses and minuses. Then again, neither party suits me well in the first place.
Saying I’m no longer a check mark in the Obama column doesn’t mean I’m voting for McCain. It means that I’m listening to them both right now — openly and without bias (as much as possible).
opinions powered by SendLove.to
77 Responses to “Obama vs. McCain: Why I’m Back on the Fence”
Polimom,
I know you probably don't believe me, and that's the danger of fighting in the muck like this. But when I bring up Palin's pastor, or her lack of experience, I always try to bring in the larger context.
Palin's pastor should be an issue, because the Republicans made Obama's pastor an issue.
Todd Palin's association with the Alaskan independence party is an issue, because the Republicans made Michelle Obama's patriotism an issue.
For me these issues say more about Republican hypocrisy than Palin herself. Sometimes that point is lost and understandably so. It's hard to keep in mind where these attacks begin or end.
It is very difficult for me to see how anyone who pays attention to politics enough to blog on that subject can be undecided at this point in the race. The only thing that changed in the last couple of weeks is that fact that the candidates now have now picked their VP candidates.
If McCain had picked Lieberman that would have been thinking out of the box as well. Do you think Lieberman as VP would have made you undecided? If not, then what is it about the Palin pick that makes you think McCain would be a better President?
Agreed, polimom. Both Biden and McCain have tons of federal legislative experience. We know the two of them know how the government works on a federal level and that they are roughly in tune with the issues. This gets them a relative pass on the experience question, but not an entire one. The only two people alive who're clearly qualified to be Prez are Carter and Bush Sr. since they've done it and can constitutionally serve. Of course, both aren't really appropriate in other ways now.
As for Palin and Obama, they each have some relevant experience, but not tons, and so it's a bigger question mark. Therefore, both now need to prove to the electorate that they are prepared. Obama's been going through this for almost two years with question after question, policy position after policy position, and debate after debate. Palin's only been with us for two weeks on a national level, and so it SHOULD be critical for her to be demonstrating her readiness every day. That's not quite what we are getting, but that's another topic.
To change the subject a bit, so, Leo, if you had a child who got a scholarship and loans to go to Harvard or Princeton, you'd counsel her against it or hold her attendance against her for the rest of her life? That seems to be what you are asking us to do of Obama. He earned a way into a terrific school and now we are to punish him for it. I ask because my parents worked their butts off so that I could get into a top school in the nation, always valuing education as the most important thing I did as a kid. I understand your sentiment somewhat with people who get in because their uncle went to school there, but everyone knows that's not the case with Obama. Apparently, Obama's mom went on food stamps for a brief period.
Chris, certainly I believe you. Why wouldn't I?
And I understand what you're saying. I honestly do. But from the perspective of someone like me — a non-partisan independent — the entire “discussion” is verging on insanity lately.
I was hugely offended by the attacks on Barack Obama, and I still find the deliberate insertion of his middle name (while saying, “but it's his name isn't it?) amazingly, childishly transparent. But I was likewise disgusted by the attacks on Sarah Palin's family.
From me, both sides are losing legitimacy on these points — and I'm a political junkie who's been following the progression. I can hardly imagine what “ordinary” (read: non-junkie) people are thinking as they now tune in.
And finally — I always understood those who were concerned about Obama's experience. I also understand the concern about Palin's. What amazes me is that neither side seems to recognize the legitimacy of the mirrored views.
Polimom, “….Do you therefore think that someone with such religious views is, or should be, automatically out of consideration for national office?”
I do not think that someone with religious views should not be considered for elected office. However given the religious rights history (and the politicians who are elected into office through the religious rights' support) I do have serious concerns about someone who is against abortion supporting a pro-choice platform unless they have a pro-choice record. I do have serious questions about someone who does not believe in even granting gays and lesbians spousal benefits to support spousal benefits for gays and lesbians. By the way, I'm pro-choice even though I personally believe abortion is wrong. Palin is running on her anti-abortion credentials (and not pro-choice).
My point with Palin is that I believe she will bring her religious views into government. If she supports a position and the people who elected her support a postion, then she will probably push to get that postion translated into policy. Obama has talked about compromise and has even made statements about what we can compromise on, such as “we may not agree on the second amendment, but surely we can all agree that we should keep military weapons out of the hands of criminals in our cities”. (That's not an exact quote…) Another example is that he said we may not agree on positions, but we can start talkinf about being more “pro-life” to allow women to make “pro-life” choices… Meanwhile what we get from McCain is a thunderous “I am pro-life and when I am your president I will be a pro-life president” (or something to that effect. McCain's statements do not allow for the compromise and change that he wants. McCain doesn't even offer up the possibility of discussing it.
But then in the next breath McCain says he will bring change to Washington and will reach across the aisle.
Personally I do not agree with the Republicans and vote for McCain. And when they run on a religious right platform without bringing up the possibility of accepting other's input, then there is no reason for me to vote for them. But lots of people do like the Republican beliefs and if the shoe fits on your foot, then wear it. It's your vote and because you're taking the time to think about the candidates I know you'll make the best decision for you and your circumstances.
By the way, sorry my previous long comment posted twice… the first time I posted it I got a server error. I didn't see it posted so I posted again (luckily I had copied it just before I tried posting). My Mac at home allows me to edit my comments so when I get home I'll try to delete…. maybe put some other minor comment in its place…
Of course it does. Or didn't you pay attention to how it worked the last couple of times? Pick someone with a record that might be able to interpreted in more than one way. Coach them lots. Coach them carefully. Let them perjure themselves in front of the Senate, it won't matter once they're on the bench anyway. Then play the political game and media game the right way and presto, you have a Roberts or Alito on the bench. McCain has promised, after all.
And let's be honest, Polimom. shouldn't it matter that he has promised this kind of SC justice over and over again recently? Doesn't just the promise to do so say a lot about him?
Jim — Yes, one of my problems with McCain all along was this. However, given the likely political make-up of Congress after the elections, I think he'll have a helluva problem getting anybody through who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
And this is probably as good a place as any to dispute Don Singleton's claim about the public opinion on Roe v. Wade. (link)
Polimom -
Shouldn't the fact that McCain's campaign is lying to your face about Palin's signature issue — her claim that she opposed the Ketchikan bridge — raise any red flags for you?
McCain has jettisoned his old political beliefs and has gleefully adopted a new set handed to him by the GOP's most right-wing members. Does that concern you?
You seem to be very concerned that Obama has turned towards the center, and is being more cautious. Will embracing a ticket that features Sarah Palin — who occupies a space on the furthest right part of the American political spectrum?
And how can you wonder for a moment that a candidate's personal views WON'T be translated into their policies when in office? Look at the last seven years!
I could go on and on like this, but my point is simple — this isn't just about Obama. This is also about Obama's opponents. Who happen to be lying, viciously and gleefully, with a big grin, while tacking to their party's far right and viciously attacking their opposition What is past is prologue — and the way that people campaign for political office is a good indicator of how they will govern. And what we are seeing here is downright scary.
Instead of bending over backwards to give McCain and Palin the benefit of the doubt, you should be holding them accountable – and getting very, very concerned.
Thank you for your comment, Bokonon. I can understand why my post would have confused you if you thought I was saying I was unhappy about Obama's “turn toward the center”. It is, in fact, the opposite I've seen. He's seemed ever-more party-line to me lately. (though I did like his statements today about charter schools)
And absolutely yes — the Bridge to Nowhere is being spun into an unrecognizable parody by the McCain camp. I've voiced my problem with this (and the earmarks spin) repeatedly.
If it helps you see my point of view — I was also extremely peeved at Obama when he started over the cliff about NAFTA. He not only shifted his position and pandered, he took advantage of low-information voters on the entire subject.
So many imperfections, so little time.
Hi Polimom –
Points well taken. But the McCain campaign isn't just spinning — they are lying.
I supported McCain back in 2000, and I am genuinely dismayed at what he is doing — and the positions he has adopted during this election.
To me, any candidate that will lie as blatantly and this viciously and this boldly as McCain has been doing isn't just imperfect — it exposes that they are both reckless and untrustworthy, and are willing to sacrifice everything for power. And it also shows that McCain's campaign has complete contempt for the American voting public. I hated it when Bush used these tactics back in 2000 and 2004, and it is chilling to see it happen all over again. McCain has morphed into his old enemies.
I used to work in politics, and I've always accepted that politicians are imperfect and disappointing. But I can accept Obama's shifts and changes as normal politics. What McCain is doing is something truly scary and malignant, and bodes ill for the way he would behave in office. You can't lead a nation through lies. At least not forever. And that is where we are right now with Bush.
I have been thinking a lot about this today, about the thought of a McCain presidency. I would have endorsed him 8 years ago, but he was also 8 years younger. He has had 4-5 bouts with cancer, and there is scientific evidence that while his mother may posssess wonderful genes, those same genes enduring years of torture, albeit for our country, don't hold up as well. I am not saying he will die, but it makes the vice presidential pick so much more important than Obama's.
So, I thought I would lay out my thoughts:
Economy: Advantage Obama – McCain has no clue on the economy. If I had a net worth of $5 Million, I would be elite. If I made $5 Million a year, I would be rich beyond my wildest dreams, and he has said that I would be a middle class american? Wow! I seriously pause at this.
Foreign Policy: Advantage Obama – Sure, McCain has all the experience in the world, but what does that do for us? Nothing. What did he say about IRAN? BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN. We don't need another stinking war! We need to chase Afghanistan, get in those hills, and use the insurgency to topple the culprits of 9/11. They weren't in Iraq… they were in Afghanistan, Kuwait, etc. Further, we need a leader that is pined after by the whole world. There isn't a country out there that would choose McCain over Obama… Diplomacy is where we need to go, even with Russia. Obama said he would talk to the the leaders of countries… McCain said that was a horrible idea, and then Bush went and talked to the leaders of Iran. Funny how Bush even came around to that idea. We need a leader that can be respected not just here, but everywhere.
Choices: Advantage Obama – Did McCain really vet Palin? No matter where you turn, the answer is no. It's not that Palin is a bad choice, it's that she is a quick choice. But, she's a bad choice for me due to the following reasons:
She's pro-family, but if elected, has said her family will live in Alaska and she will live in Washington DC. She has five children that need her more than America needs her. She has a down syndrome baby and putting her political ambitions in front of her child proves me to me that she doesn't have what it takes to be a leader in this free world. I would say the same thing about Obama if he had five children, or Biden if he had five (But remember, he takes the train back to Scranton every night to be an influence on his children).
She has a child that is pregnant at 17. She teaches that you shouldn't talk about sex education, yet if she had done such, we might see a decrease in teenage pregnancies. Obama spoke about this, but directed it to the black man. Responsibility. Sarah Palin can't even show it in her own family.
The Bridge to Nowhere – For it, before it was vetoed in Washington.
Troopergate – regardless of the outcome, it was poor judgement on her behalf to try to fire her brother-in-law. She should have gone through proper channels.
The Sports Complex: Alaska didn't even own free and clear title to the land before she started building her complex which cost taxpayers millions!
Fiscal responsibility: Her state receives a C- as states go in doing business. It's now riddled with debt, while she cuts checks to Alaskans. Mortgage your future for today's hedonistic acts. Does it remind you of Bush's tax cuts?
I'll stop there… She's not my choice.
Education: Advantage Obama – McCain doesn't know education, never has. Obama fought his way through rigerous studies, and then voluneteered that knowledge to people that were less priveledged. Obama wants to focus his policies on America, not the world around us.
Veterans: Advantage Obama – He wants to increase VA benefits, increase schooling, and increase the reasons to join the military.
Taxes: Advantage Obama – His tax plans call for 3.1 Trillion, whereas McCains call for 5 Trillion
Fiscal Responsibility: I want a balanced budget and to pay off debt. This is a hard call, but I think Obama has this as well.
Courts: Advantage Obama – I want judges that interpret law, but are also smart enough to understand that the black and white of the law doesn't always fit Americans. We have too many horrible judges, and for Bush to name Harriet Miers was a joke. McCain will continue that tradition… a joke.
Abortion: Advantage Obama – McCain is pro-choice, but the reason we have separation of church and state is to keep the religious fanatics out of dictating what we can and can not do to ourselves. Scientific evidence proves, without a doubt, that a viable fetus isn't at conception. Palin, in McCain's absence, would outlaw abortion, even in the most extreme cases, such as a father raping his daughter and getting her pregnant. That's not just socially wrong, that's morally wrong. Birth control, such as progestrone, is not abortion either.
Experience: Advantage McCain – But this election is about change. JFK was about change, and hope. JFK stood high and set a goal to be on the moon by the end of the decade. We acheived it. Obama set a goal of being energy independent in 10 years. If we elect McCain, no such vision will be in place.
Oil: Advantage Obama – I don't want to drill off shore, but that is when McCain's numbers started to bounce… when he SWITCHED HIS POSITION and PANDERED to the far right to DRILL NOW. Drilling is not the answer, alternative energy is.
Hope: Advantage Obama – This isn't even close.
Temperment: Advantage Obama – This isn't even close. People close to McCain have said for years his temper is fast and furious. So if Russia irritates him… watch out, we may be in a nuclear war.
Spokesman for America: Advantage Obama – Let's prove we are the country of opportunity, no matter what color your skin, what sex you are born, what religion you practice. Let's prove that we are a leader, not a follower, a gentle and diplomatic nation. McCain is more of the same, the exact opposite of where our country, where our world, needs to go.
Respectfully,
Jon
Jon,
McCain is not pro-choice. He's been anti-choice for years.
Polimom — I've never run into you before, so please excuse me if I make inadvertent assumptions. If I understand correctly, you were pretty much decided on Obama versus McCain, but McCain's selection of Palin for VP has put you back to square one. Your two reasons for this change of mind are her “newness to Washington” and the fact that with this selection McCain has gone “outside the box”, while you feel Obama is putting himself in the box (conforming to his party).
I presume that you have positions on a variety of public policy issues. I make the ASSUMPTION that while you were leaning towards Obama, you felt that his policy views were, on balance, preferable to those of McCain. If that assumption is correct, would you be willing to give a couple of examples of how that situation has changed for you because of McCain's selection of Palin?
“Newness to Washington”, or outsider status, is a characteristic that American voters love to fall for. Dubya, Slick, the Gipper, Jimmeh — all outsiders. The only “insider” we've elected since Nixon was Poppy Bush, and he was running against Dukakis. Outsider == no national track record == relatively little baggage. I fully realize that this was a big factor in Obama's decision to run this time around, but I don't really consider it as a positive factor for him, or Palin. I also know I'm in the minority on this point. All I can say is “outsider status” ended up having very little to do with how recent Presidents have governed — what has mattered is ideology.
SCOTUS nominees: I'm sorry, but you're just wrong about this. I'm sixty. The only nominee that has been borked in my lifetime was Bork. The Senate defers to the executive on almost all appointments, and all a prospective justice has to do is plead “I can't tell you my opinion on possible future issues” and Bob's your uncle.
Palin hasn't done anything to impose her hard-right views on anybody: Well, she hasn't been in a position to, has she? I mean, this could be natural restraint; or it could be that a small-town mayor — or the 21-month governor of the only really libertarian state — just doesn't have a lot of opportunities for social engineering. How would we know? One of the problems with no track record, eh?
Just as a BTW: how many small-town mayors, do you think, start off their tenure in office by requesting the resignation of most of their direct staff as a loyalty test?
Anyhow, cheers. It's America. Sooner or later we'll find out what we voted for.
Actually, strangelet, I never did fully recover from Obama's launch into populism in Ohio — nor does it seem that he fully recovered either. Furthermore, that was a primary, and this is the GE.
Re: small town mayors: haven't been in a position to observe any mayors first hand. I have, however, watched any number of elected officials in other capacities (such as Sheriffs) fire the entire leadership from the prior office holder.
And if you truly feel the SCOTUS nominees are a walk-through in the Senate, then the problem there isn't actually with the executive branch, is it?
[...] Polimom says that she’s re-considering the McCain/Palin ticket, too. [...]
I'm with Blue — I don't see how anyone who is following the Issues can still be on the fence at this point.
If we put aside all the minutia for the moment, the question is this: Do we want to reward the Bush administration and its catastrophic follies by ushering in McCain, a man whose policies (and campaigning strategies) echo the current villains in power? If the past 8 years had yielded American prosperity and pride, I would say there would be some real decision making to do. But today? The choice to me is blindingly clear.
[...] the problem for Obama. Many on the left are pulling out of his camp and are now back on the fence, waiting to see how Sarah Palin does. The far left has gone insane, [...]
Holly:
Could you tell us a bit more?
Why are you now considering Obama?
I don't disagree with you, Leonidas, that Palin has a lot in common with “regular folks,” but so do Obama and Biden, and McCain too, for that matter. None of them come from wealthy families. Biden's family is from the same small town area as my grandparents, so I know exactly what he's talking about when he references the blue-collar roots in Scranton, PA. Obama's a self-made man from very humble (though somewhat exotic) beginnings. We all know the story by now. My dad's is similar in that he, too, came from a lower income, single-parent family. He put himself through college, got married, had a couple kids, and worked hard for his success. And McCain's family has a long history of military service, something my extended family also shares.
But I think you're ignoring something incredibly fundamental to American life, and that is the desire to be better off than the previous generation. In modern times, that often means getting an education. You may look down on the “ivory tower” of academia, but I and most other college graduates are incredibly proud of our achievements and our education. Would you prefer that we wallow in ignorance? That we allow the mediocre to lead us further away from progress? The Ivy League alum is every bit as American as the high school drop out. The chemical engineer is every bit as representative of American values as a soccer mom.
If I understand your response correctly, your recent disaffection with Obama has nothing much to do with Palin, but is rather based on your perception that he has changed his positions undesirably (towards the left?), therefore putting the two candidates somewhat equidistant from you. Thank you for the clarification; I can understand that reasoning, although from reading various blogs I must say that there are few others who feel that Obama has moved toward populism/leftism during the campaign.
As for SCOTUS consent in the Senate, it's still true that Presidents, of either party, get the justices they want. My comment was in reply to your earlier remark that “it doesn't work like that”. In fact, it DOES work like that, irrespective of where the “problem” lies.
Actually I disagree that Obama has changed his positions to the left, he has always been very Liberal, and has actually been moving towards the right, giving up many of his more liberal positions (strangely enough, many of the ones I could have supported before his shift). Voting for Dick Cheney's FISA bill that he has said he would filibuster for example.
The direction of his shifts don't bother me too much, its the nature of them. I mean how can we, the voter, trust a man who was willing to give up his principles and vote for FISA for political convienience? We aren't talking a minor item here, we are talking about trashing the US Constitution and granting retroactive immunity to telecoms who assist in warrantless wiretapping.
The President swears an oath to uphold the US Constitution, I don't trust Obama to ba able to do that.
About Obama/FISA : he already explained that while there a number things wrong with FISA, he felt it had moved. He said less than ideal, but a starting point.
And what might be McCain's vote on FISA? I think we know.
L, your concern of not having the US Constitution upheld: he was a professor in Constitutional law. He knows it inside and out — I'd say that's more than the current crew leads us to believe. And again, where does McCain come out in this? You would trust him more to uphold the Constitution than Obama? And if yes, based on what?
Leo said, “The direction of his shifts don't bother me too much, its the nature of them. I mean how can we, the voter, trust a man who was willing to give up his principles and vote for FISA for political convienience? We aren't talking a minor item here, we are talking about trashing the US Constitution and granting retroactive immunity to telecoms who assist in warrantless wiretapping.”
I agree with you that Obama voted the wrong way here. To echo 8isEnough though, you are going to have to vote 3rd party this year if this is a fundamental issue for you, because McCain clearly supports all of these changes and more. He's voted in support of numerous similar and stronger bills.
I performed an in depth analysis of the voting records of Joseph Biden, John McCain, and Barack Obama over the last two years. I thought you might like to read it.
“most American voters (60%) agree with the Republicans and say the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution”
This statistic says more about the lack of understanding of most Americans about the Supreme Court's decision-making than anything else. Every justice votes according to “what is written in the constitution.” They may differ on what various constitutional provisions mean, but not on whether to follow the Constitution. The characterization that decisions republicans oppose are due to not justices not making decisions based on the Constitution is just Kool-Aid. And apparently 60% of Americans are drinking it.
“Why are you worried about Roe v Wade. Even if it was overturned, it would not outlaw abortions, just turn it over to the states, and most abortions are in blue states where it would still be legal.”
People are worried because Roe v. Wade is about whether individuals should make the decision regarding this highly private matter closely related to personal beliefs in religion and morality or whether government should. Given our commitments to individual freedom and less government, opposition to turning over an individual private decision to government is an understandable position.
The reason the right wants legislatures to decide instead of individuals is because they believe they would have sufficient votes in most states to force their individual choices through state coercion on others. Other than the libertarians, the idea that republicans are all about less government is a farce.
Being a new comer and all, please accept my congratulations for what I see as a great blog where thought process is appreciated.
I have heard (and read)throught the vitriol of some of the moderates-wannabe leftist here and elsewhere about their thougths on Palin…cosidering arguments against her because she's inexperienced is a total hypocrisy. Most of the people critiquing her because she has “no experience” will vote for Obama with 141 days worth of senatorial experience.
Futhermore, Obama has completly lied about his little to no experience as community activist, and has never commanded anything. If anyone wants to put him on the nuclear button, go right ahead, but I rather have experience than no-experince and lies. Palin has more experience as VP than Obama as POTUS.
Additionally, I think most people who are simply voting him on the the fact that he's half black are doing so because they want to give the chance to someone that is not white to represent them, in a seek-twisted desire of seing him succeed disregarding the obvious elements of his lack of any qualifications for the job whatsoever.
Finally, let me add that I think that McCain is not the bst guy for the job. Maybe we need an honest version of Bill Clinton or something…but he/she is not running. Obama is. And his twisted lies…like McCain voted with POTUS 90% of the time…well, biden voted with Bush 50% of the time and Obama 40%. Does that make them 1/2 of Bush?, all these is making me go the McCain route…maybe Hillary will be able to run in 4 years and the mess will be over then.