It seems likely to me that right-wing trolls will answer this poll, and indicate that they're for McCain, so that it'll look like Obama has less support than he really has.

Here is my answer to this question. http://knotmyline.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/how-they-can-get-me-to-vote-for-them/

Does pro-choice mean that if there are 10 people in a room they are allowed to have 10 different opinions, even if that ranges from a NARAL activist to a foster or adoptive parent who opposes abortion for religious or other reasons?

Would Hillary Clinton rather have been in the minority in the Senate rather than having Bob Casey (from a famously anti-abortion family) be elected as a Democratic US Senator?

I believe everyone has the right to make up their own mind about abortion---which means no one should have the right to be in-your-face on the subject. Look up where Barry Goldwater and Hubert Humphrey stood on abortion. Which one of those gentlemen was a Democratic candidate for president? Is it better to be someone who strongly believes that children should be cared for (nutrition, health care, education, housing, etc.) even though that person has mixed feelings about abortion? Or to have someone who is in favor of abortion rights but never lifts a finger to help kids?
Are we going to slam those who believe that abortion is wrong if they are full of good works for children? I have no use for the RTL types, but have great respect for those who take in or otherwise help foster kids, for instance.

With all the problems facing this country, if abortion becomes a litmus test because all "good people" believe no one should have the right of conscience on an issue like this, then "pro-choice" really means nothing other than the right to be on the NARAL side of the argument. Too many voters are neither NARAL nor RTL, and winning candidates understand that.

Kristin, I completely agree with you. This is the Democratic Party nominee for President and VP. There should be no question of their strong support for choice. Bayh and Kaine can take a flying leap.

Obama is a loser, a liar, a sellout, a follower, and a fraud. McCain offers a GOP candidate the likes of which we have not seen for a generation. The choice is pretty damn obvious for true progressives interested in moving the entire political apparatus of the country LEFTWARD!

"I can't imagine Hillary supporters, or any strong proponent of a woman's right to abortion, being too happy"

No matter what anyone does or think in this world today, no matter what the issue, there will always be some uptight group or person who will gripe, whine, or complain about it, no matter what it is. It is the Modern American way. Nobody is ever truly happy and nobody ever gets away without being chided, scolded, or corrected for something, no matter how big or small.

And, sadly, a lot of us are used to it to the point that we just do not care one way or the other.

Huh. Peter, it may be obvious in your own head - but why don't you enlighten us?

The reasons why many Democrats don't like Obama are already well-established. Perhaps the best example is Obama's lies on FISA.

As for McCain, he is the most liberal GOP presidential candidate since Nixon. Nixon gave us the EPA, ESA, Clean water/air, etc etc. The GOP, currently, is a far-right religious organization chiefly because of Geo. Bush. A McCain presidency would shift that party leftward, towards a secular classical conservatism.

On the other hand, Obama is a "compromiser" and centrist. Given the far-right nature of the opposition, his centrism would probably be to the right of McCain's presidential approach which would more be in the spirit of classic conservative Barry Goldwater.

Nice labels. "Classic conservative" and "secular classical conservatism". Where your argument falls apart for me is this conclusion: " ...his centrism would probably be to the right of McCain's presidential approach...". The labels explain nothing about issues on which you feel Obama's position would be "to the right" of McCains.

Voter button: seems stuck! Problem?

I'm just curious as to how many Obama supporters voted in in this poll just to make Clinton supporters feel like they're the minority (I say this as a "since day one" Obama supporter).

Anthony: this Board purports to robust conversation laced liberally with an ethos of collegiality. The primary plaints consist of the woefully inconsistent and unproveable prooftexts quoted for everything under the sun!

Why, oh why would a Blue Oregonian purposely weigh in if they were not indeed the creature Jeffrey seeks to measure? What would be the good of that, or the fun?

Peter, When McCain ran in 2000, I loved him. And you are right-- he was the most liberal GOP presidential candidate we'd had in years.

But he lost, because you can't win the GOP nomination as a moderate (or liberal). Since then, he has taken a hard right and is pandering to his base on most issues, which is fine; he had to to get the nomination.

But since flip-flopping apparently only counts if it's within the same election cycle, I think we should all judge the candidates based on their positions for THIS election. In a side by side comparisson this season, Obama is hands down the more left-leaning of the two. He is even being billed by conservative pundits as the most liberal Senator in the Senate, "to the right of Sen. Ted Kennedy."

Anyway, thanks for sharing your viewpoint, it's always nice to hear a different perspective around here!

Fact of the matter is that Dems haven't had a LEADER since LBJ. All of the putative heads of our party have been followers. And, just like the little pipsqueak in Of Mice and Men who has to prove his toughness, or just like today's kowtowing Senate/House Dems, we have had failing leader after failing leader, falling in line behind whatever rightwing media narrative is spun.

Obama, not even president, has fallen for this time and again, from FISA, to faith-based initiatives, and now, probably, to his VP choice. He is a loser, just like the rest of them, from Clinton, to Carter, to Pelosi, to Reid.

McCain, as Kate points out, has bucked his party in the past. And, no doubt, he will buck his party in the future.

Obama, on the other hand, will break our hearts in a million little ways. He is an absolute fraud, a con artist, a coward, a follower, and, sadly, a typical Democrat.

"Moses": is it really necessary to devolve immediately to name-calling? And if you must, perhaps a brief descriptor as to what "troll" means in your lexicon. Would dearly like to avoid such bashing of my own good self. The implied well of rage in your post is resonant with the raging Obama supporter in the cube next to me. She's got some pretty ugly true believer energy and actually HATES Hillary Clinton. You speak Clinton's name and her eyes throw darts. Yah, old image, trite: but I've finally seen it for myself. Her eyes throw darts!

"Fact of the matter is that Dems haven't had a LEADER since LBJ." Nice try at revisionist history, Peter.

The reason college students like me supported Eugene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 is that LBJ was leading in the wrong direction. Humphrey lost to Nixon for not separating from LBJ soon enough.

There were some folks whose friends were disabled or killed in Vietnam who talked about Nixon being a crook but they hated LBJ.

So, Obama's voting record is not 100% in your book. Who is politically perfect?

Peter, the question isn't whether or not McCain is a "leader" or not (how are you defining that anyway?). The question is WHERE will McCain lead us? Well, let's see....100 years in Iraq, attacking Iran, making Bush's tax cuts permanent, appointing conservatives to the Supreme Court who will trounce the liberties of our citizens. You're right! McCain will lead....straight into HELL!

NO. THANK. YOU. I think I'll stay with Obama, but thanks for reminding me why!

Piece of shit alert:

Obama caves on offshore drilling.

When will progressives wake up and see that this fraud is, well, a fraud!

Language is interesting. I am distressed everytime any of you stoop to namecalling. An elder of mine once pointed out that my use of namecalling and profanity was a sign that my creative access to my marvelous vocabulary was plumb give out. A disappointment to a man waiting to hear what I really thought about things.

Peter, though I may be aligned with your source, the language is noisy from that "side" as it is from the "other". Nobody is free from bias. I watch DrudgeReport for comic value and the comically sad fact that local news broadcasts often follow DR day by day. So Peter's source says: "Obama Caves on Offshore...", and the famously conservative reactionary DR bills it as, "Obama shifts position on offshore oil drilling..."

I look to this board to get away from shrill reactionism. And I would hope you do ask yourself this question every morning when you get up: "What is my bias?"

Another old fellow man I worked with once said this to me about an abusive individual: "If it's a snake lying there, don't expect nothin' except it's a snake!". He meant that I should take responsibility for understanding a snake's character, nature, response set, and re/act neutrally and accordingly. When I saw the leads on Obama/drilling, I too immediately thought, "Here comes reality at last." as though he'd betrayed me and now the cover was blown. But the other side of me is a grownup or at least a realist, and that me says, "He is a politician. That is how it works. Let's just see what comes next."

I am as idealistically unforgiving as the next guy. And I understand that these wonderful bastards are embedded in a context. Let's just see what that guy does next.

Meanwhile: does this mean you plan now to vote for McCain? He's a piece of shit too, ain't he? What's our choices now, in a monolithic "two" party system?

Jeff Alworth:

Chris L was not "arguing that [Sunstein's] potential appointment to the bench is reason enough to worry about Obama as a candidate." Chris has taken what I consider to be a far more thoughtful position, i.e., that Obama's regressiveness on several other issues suggests that court appointments are the primary reason to prefer him to, e.g., Nader. When Obama shows himself to be likely to choose someone like Sunstein, he risks the loss of real DP progressives like Chris.

Here's an actual quote from the link to Obama's capitulation posted above by Peter Bray:

"If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem."

Obama was not saying that his condition for allowing the drilling was "if he got everything he wanted in an energy deal", as you claim. His condition is that it be part of "an overarching package". Just as his "end the war" rhetoric is laced with loopholes, his offshore drilling rhetoric now appears to support Peter's claims.

Sam Geggy: While even I would refrain from some of what Peter says, I understand his rage and his desire to communicate that rage. I prefer emotion to be part of the package as long as it incorporates reason. (By the way, I disagree with Peter's argument about supporting McCain; he, as you said, is "a piece of shit too." But it is an argument, not merely a tirade.)

Ms Mel Harmon said that McCain will lead us to "...100 years in Iraq, attacking Iran, making Bush's tax cuts permanent, appointing conservatives to the Supreme Court who will trounce the liberties of our citizens."

The problem is that Obama's policy statements on all these issues suggests triangulation rather than opposition to McCain's horrendous positions.

<h2>Mr Bray, please redirect your considerable polemical talents to your lobbying work for the Fair Play for Chinese Occupation of Tibet Committee.</h2>