...are political lowlifes who put their personal bitterness ahead of true left-oriented agenda. As far as the issues are concerned, there is not enough difference between Obama and Hillary to justify going to McCain now that Hillary is out of the race.

Maybe they should vote for McCain; then they can live with their conscience later on when we have a new war to worry about. Obama can do without their support. I'd rather see him lose than try to pander to these assholes.

Anse, I wouldn't call them "lowlifes" but couldn't argue if you wanted to call them "hapless" or something. I can't for the life of me figure why they'd go from Hillary to McCain except maybe the canard that Obama is a babe in the woods as far as foreign policy. Domestically the difference between Clinton and Obama was a matter of small degree. People went with the candidate with less baggage and upon whom they could project their hopes.

Personally I don't think any of the candidates even differ that greatly on foreign policy except in their rhetoric and in what they, personally, would represent to others: McCain representing a continuing "hard line" stance against our enemies (though my guess is he'll be looking for some sort of Iraq exit as much as any democrat, and be forced to reckon with Iran diplomatically). And conversely, Obama will keep troops in Iraq for some time, as he damn well should.

is going to make people less bitter?! Good tactic. NOT!

I've spoken with several newly minted McCain supporters. Many of them site Obama's lack of experience as their reason. So, are you going to try and tell them that Obama has MORE experience the McCain. The moment you dismiss them as not having a good reason, you stigmatize them and force them further away.

From what I have seen here on Slate, the Obama supporters are doing their very best to kneecap their candidate. Good job there. But you won't take any responsibility for a McCain win come this fall.

Ridiculous. Anyone who supports the man who is against fair wages for women, who is opposed to a woman's right to choose, who is a notoriously carousing letch that dumped his accident-disfigured first wife for a newer, richer model, who laughs at Hillary being called a bitch, who calls his wife a c.-.-.t., who calls a tender, teen-aged Chelsea ugly "because Janet Reno is her father", who is opposed to healthcare reform that our country so desperately needs, who is a warrior from a long line of warriors who sees diplomatic solutions in terms of more wars and warmongering, who thinks winning is losing more lives in pursuit of a war that is universally understood to be misguided from the beginning, anyone who supports THAT man cannot be guided by principles that respect women. How on earth can you equate that philosophy with an advantage of experience? Experience doing WHAT should be the question.

I completely understand feelings can be hurt and emotions can run high. I have no idea how it is possible to be so shallow and destructive as to perpetuate a continuation of the obscene misdirection we have been subjected to for 7+ years. I hope the time will come when reason prevails.

Obama has 8 years in the Illinois Senate and 3 in the US Senate, along with ten as a civil rights lawyer-community organizer. Clinton had 7 in the US Senate and around ten as a fundreaiser and corporate lawyer.

Sleeping with the president does not give you experience. She didn't have a Q clearance. She wasn't privy to a lot.

From where I sit, as a black woman who voted for Edwards (as the best candidate with a platform aimed at poor people's interests) Clinton has a little bit more Senate experience than Obama, far less state level experience, and FAR less experience than McCain (although most of his seems to be involved in using political influence for cash and corporate interests, like in the Keating Five scandal).

Saying that she has more experience reveals a lack of research into all fo the candidates.