Forgive me but I'm very confused. How does shifting your support to everything Hillary loathed and worked against show respect for her?

that Dean screwed the pooch this election. You assume all people vote based upon policy.

Because I have a very unfavorable opinion of Senator Obama, particularly on the issue of health care, where I believe his policies pit the young (his constituency) against the elderly (my demographic.) He was able to forge an effective coalition that gained him the nomination, but he did it at the expense of the traditional role of the Democratic Party. (N.B. -- when Professor Samantha Power called Hillary Clinton a "witch", it was well reported in the press, but her remarks about Senator Obama's projected foreign policy went essentially unnoticed. It sometimes seems as if nobody has been reading the fine print.)

I do not like Senator McCain, but because of his age he may be more receptive to my needs, and he would not impose "reforms" that would be mistaken for progressivism. I would rather elect Senator McCain and take my chances in four years than elect Senator Obama who seems to lack both understanding and concern for people outside his young and well educated supporters.

Another 4 years and a couple thousand more dead in Iraq so you can "take your chances" in 2012 with the war no nearer resolution than it is today? Obama's approach to health care for our demographic (I'm 68) is nearly identical to Clinton's, especially when compared to McCain's "shop til you drop" approach to health care.

differnetEllen:

that Dean screwed the pooch this election. You assume all people vote based upon policy.

Obviously. Hillary and Obama's policies about about 99% identical and differ only in the margins while McCain's is 180 degrees apart from theirs. It's become painfully obvious that too many people voted based on the dream of electing the first woman or the first black and have let their allegiance to identity politics supercede their own interests.

So now that Hillary has officially lost, the only reason a former supporter of hers would vote for McCain is out of spite. If any of you elderly do vote for him, please, look your granddaughters in the eye and picture them pregnant and dropping out of school because you helped Roe v. Wade get over turned. Look your grandsons in the eye and picture them being drafted to fight in his upcoming invasion of Iran.

Now tell me how McCain is a better choice.

Forgive me, but people don't seem to understand the difference between the two health plans, and that's regretable. Senator Obama's plan makes particvipation voluntary, and eliminates the "pre-existing condition" clause of contracts that constitutes a major penalty for non-participation. It is an open invitation for the young and healthy to opt-out, no matter how low the prices are -- particularly in the current economy. He's proposing a system when you can opt-in whenever your expenses exceed the premiums.

As for Iraq -- Professor Samantha Power did say that Senator Obama's proposal for withdrawal only applied in a best case situation. So far, we haven't had a best case, but that key qualification was omitted in the rush to focus on the "witch" comment. In essence, Professor Power has said about Iraq what Austan Goolsbee said about Senator Obama's position on NAFTA -- that his public statements are intended to draw votes, but don't take them seriously. I suspect Jeremiah Wright was being honest when he said that Senator Obama will say whatever it takes to get elected.

The fact is, the young and the healthy need less coverage than the sick and the elderly. The flaw in Hillary's plan is that it's a one-size-fits-all solution. That's the same mistake she made in the 90s and sunk health care reform for a generation.

But if you're going to support McCain because of what are minor differences between Hillary and Obama's plans, then get ready to bend over and take it some more. IF (and this is a big if) a republican ever gets around to working on health care reform, we know what it'll look like: A bigger version of the senior prescription drug plan. A big, blotted and confusing mess of plans that are designed to profit the insurance industry more than they will ever benefit the people you claim to want to support.

But sure, support McCain just because he's older. That makes as much sense as supporting Hillary just becase she's a woman or Obama just because he's black.

You are indeed splitting hairs. Senator Clinton's health care plan, and Obama's were virtually identical, and I do not see, at any point, where Obama's campaign attempted to alienate one of the largest demographic groups within the Democratic party. Many former Hillary supporters are playing a very dangerous game here. IT IS NOT WORTH RISKING ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF REPUBLICAN RULE OUT OF SPITE!!!! Think of the economic, political and cultural damage that will be done with McCain. I don't even have to mention Roe v Wade. Eight years of damage is enough.

No matter what you Obamaborgs say, the truth is that Hillary's health plan was the best. In the future, that will be the plan that American will finally adopt because it is the only one that makes sense and can work of the three. There is no way a universal health care system can work if people are simply allowed to desert it whenever they feel they do not need it. This should be a joint effort of the whole commnunity. Otherwise, it is not going to work. And there are great benefits for all those involved, even for those who believe that they do not need it.

Hillary still lost. So, regardles of whether or not her plan is best, she's done.

She still has a chance to push her plan through the Senate, but it'll only get signed into law if a democrat is in White House, but calling people "Obamaborgs" isn't really helpful in convincing people that you're right.

McCain is hardly 180 degrees opposite, except for maybe on Iraq. He supports a wishy washy universal health plan, but he is solidly behind caps on carbon emissions.

Talk to the newly minted Clinton supporters and they will tell you that they think Obama doesn't have enough experience and they are right. Change over experience. Kind of what the Clinton/Obama match up was about. So, ignore it if you want.

McCain is pro-life, admires judges like Alito and Scalia, and supports Bush's disastrous economic policies. He voted with Bush 95% of the time last year.

You can call people simplistic who have actually looked at the issues, if you want, but that doesn't make you right.

And I really don't care what the "newly minted Clinton supporters" have to say, because, you know, she's not a candidate any more.

You can blast Obama for not having as much inside the beltway experience dealing with corrupt lobbyists as say, Hillary or McCain does, but you know what?

He still beat Hillary. Imagine that.

Second, I'm not surprised Obama won. Clinton's team made several key mistakes. first, they started off by making Bill the candidate and not Hillary. Once she began to run on her own her numbers rose dramatically. Third, they had a hard time getting their message to be cohesive. However, you notice that in the last 4 months her wins escalated dramatically.

I also have to take into account the fiasco that the DNC made of Fl and MI. You can't win by disenfranchising voters - at least not in the long run. Dean's also making a key mistake in trying to short-cut rebranding the Democratic Party. Nothing like a rockstar to give a party panache, but it tends to run short. Heck, he gave Obama his list of grass root donors.

Well that's different.

But please stop pretending that the "disenfranchising" of the voters of FL and MI wasn't something that Hillary and her supporters on the rules committee didn't agree to long before the race began when everyone thought the primary was just a formality on the way to her coronation. She only tried to rewrite the rules when she became behind and desperate.

And who cares that she won more late contests than early ones? Obama still won 11 in a row and clinched the nomination. Coming in 2nd in the delegate count is still losing no matter want order your individual wins came in.

And, as others have said, if "experience" was the be all and end all of presidential nominations, then Richardson, Dodd, or Biden would have finished ahead of Clinton.

If you really want to vote for McCain, by all means go ahead, but please dont' pretend it's for any reason other than spite over Hillary's loss.

What are you so suprised about this is what has been the open sentiment for months and the only reason Hillary has stayed in the race to keep all these voters from defecting. If she conceded earlier the voters would be firmly Rep established. Time is running out on Obama to pick Hillary as his running mate the longer he takes the more the numbers will increase for Mccain defection. Its pretty obvious and has been an echoing theme for the last few months in this forum. Read the writing on the wall Obama before its too late and Mccain wins by default because of hesitancy. Do the tight thing.