So will any other Hillary supporters be voting for McCain?

[SomeLawStudent]

Or are you guys still holding out for her to win the nomination somehow?

[SomeLawStudent]

Not a Hillary supporter, though I was Unlike most Republicans legitimately quite favorable to her and would have been happy with her as president. But I’m curious why you Hillary supporters would not support Obama, given that there do not seem to be many policy differences between them. If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about Obama that rubs you the wrong way?

I just have a big personal dislike for Obama.   He seems extremely fake.  I made a comment about how his rallies placed lots of white people behind him in another thread and basically everyone here said that was OK because it's typical political posturing.  Fine, but I thought he was the candidate of change and all that.  He just seems to be an empty suit that gives good speeches and makes unrealistic claims, like that he was a law professor for instance.

[SomeLawStudent]

Not a Hillary supporter, though I was Unlike most Republicans legitimately quite favorable to her and would have been happy with her as president. But I’m curious why you Hillary supporters would not support Obama, given that there do not seem to be many policy differences between them. If you don’t mind me asking, what is it about Obama that rubs you the wrong way?

I just have a big personal dislike for Obama.   He seems extremely fake.  I made a comment about how his rallies placed lots of white people behind him in another thread and basically everyone here said that was OK because it's typical political posturing.  Fine, but I thought he was the candidate of change and all that.  He just seems to be an empty suit that gives good speeches and makes unrealistic claims, like that he was a law professor for instance.

The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors).

Perhaps nothing has astonished me this primary season as the number of politics watchers who have somehow developed an ignorance about political campaigns and hold their candidates up to extra-politically high standards. It's a jungle out there. I defended Hillary when the Obama people were trying to hold her to a ridiculously high ethical standard, even though she also could have run a much cleaner campaign. But this is absurd. To complain about the fact that the campaign is conscious of the people standing behind the candidate when they give a speech? This is one of the most rote and mundane things that every candidate has done for decades.

I don't think being "the candidate of change" requires one to be so extreme that one fails to take basic campaign precautions. That kind of idealism is responsible for long-haired hippies who drop out of society to remain pure but end up accomplishing very little.

Most of the Obama movement is comprised of "long-haired hippies who drop out of society to remain pure but end up accomplishing very little."  I don't think putting 1,000 white people behind u when ur speaking to an audience of 20,000 that is about 80% black is a rote and mundane thing.  Sorry.

[SomeLawStudent]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

[SomeLawStudent]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

[SomeLawStudent]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

Ughhh....more stupid "Gotcha" politics.

More like the "candidate of change" lying when he should know better.

[SomeLawStudent]

It's common for lecturers to refer to themselves as "professors" because that's what the kids call them.

Do you really think this is an intentional lie?  I know you don't like the man, but...if this were Clinton, I'd be saying the exact same thing.

Yes I do.  Look at the article I referenced, he clearly tried to use his "status" as a Constitutional Law Professor to score points in a legal argument he was making.  Every barred attorney has to pass a Character and Fitness Exam when they take a bar in any state.  It is very extensive and bar committee's look for any contradictions or mistatements in potential Attorney's resume's or law school applications.  For instance, if you lied about a job title when applying to law school then that could be used against you in denying you admission to a state bar.  Obama, who has passed the bar in IL presumably (which has one of the most extensive bar exams behind CA, NY, VA) should know this and should cover his basis more.  If it was just a little slip up it would be one thing, but he was clearly flat out lying about his legal background to sound more well versed on a Constitutional Laww Issue than George Bush.  If for instance, he wrote on his law school application that he was a College Professor when he was not, I guarantee you that is something that would be highly scrutinized by Bar Examiners and anyone else in the Legal Profession.   

[SomeLawStudent]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

Ughhh....more stupid "Gotcha" politics.

More like the "candidate of change" lying when he should know better.

Oh yea. He should take a page out of Clinton's book and call it sleep deprivation.

Yeah of course, Hillary Clinton should be highly scrutinized for lying, but Barack Obama, who holds himself up on a pedestal as the candidate of change should be given a free pass when he lies outright.  *votes for McCain*

[SomeLawStudent]

It's common for lecturers to refer to themselves as "professors" because that's what the kids call them.

Do you really think this is an intentional lie?  I know you don't like the man, but...if this were Clinton, I'd be saying the exact same thing.

Yes I do.  Look at the article I referenced, he clearly tried to use his "status" as a Constitutional Law Professor to score points in a legal argument he was making.  Every barred attorney has to pass a Character and Fitness Exam when they take a bar in any state.  It is very extensive and bar committee's look for any contradictions or mistatements in potential Attorney's resume's or law school applications.  For instance, if you lied about a job title when applying to law school then that could be used against you in denying you admission to a state bar.  Obama, who has passed the bar in IL presumably (which has one of the most extensive bar exams behind CA, NY, VA) should know this and should cover his basis more.  If it was just a little slip up it would be one thing, but he was clearly flat out lying about his legal background to sound more well versed on a Constitutional Laww Issue than George Bush.  If for instance, he wrote on his law school application that he was a College Professor when he was not, I guarantee you that is something that would be highly scrutinized by Bar Examiners and anyone else in the Legal Profession.   

Why are you so convinced that he was using it formally instead of colloquially, and attempting to lie instead of just offhandedly using a term that most Americans think are interchangeable?

You don't need to convince me that intentionally lying about such a matter would be wrong...of course it would be.

I'm just kind of saying, coming from someone who likes both McCain and Obama personally, and is pretty familiar with this whole full professor/lecturer thing, this seems like the sort of thing that I'd use to unreasonably justify disliking someone I already dislike.

Because it was the context he was using this in.  I think it is harder to understand if one is not a lawyer, but I'll try to give my best argument...  In most professions having a PhD and then becoming a researcher or something, means you are an expert on the topic and highly respected.  Becoming a Professor with a PhD is also prestigious but it's basically just another job you can do with a PhD. 

The legal profession is quite different.  Becoming a Law Professor, along with clerking for a Federal Judge or actually becoming a Judge, is pretty much the most prestigious thing you can do with a Law Degree.  In any given law school there is a huge distinction between Professor's and guest lecturers that teach 1 or 2 classes every now and then.  Usually full-fledged Professors are extremely well educated, clerked for Federal Judges if not for Supreme Court Justices and have written many Law Review articles on their specified area of interest.  Guess lecturers tend to just be local attorney's who have specialized in some area and can teach a pretty specific legal class.  They almost never teach 1st year law students and they usually don't write their own law school books.  There is a big difference. 

So with that said, he has used his "Professor" status in a context that has offended a lot of people because he's tried to make himself seem like the former Professor's mentioned when in fact he is more like the latter lecturers.  That's why I find him to be fake in this particular context.  Mostly because he acts as though he is the candidate of change, who is better than everyone else.

[SomeLawStudent]

Thank you for your answer.  Respectfully, I think all candidates think that they are "better than everyone else" in what they plan to deliver.  I think that the perception that one candidate feels himself or herself "superior" is mostly connected to a fundamental dislike of them.  I often feel that way about Clinton.  I don't think that's really fair.

I do want to look into this more though.  In the end, I don't think Obama has a particularly extensive pattern of disingenuous behavior.  I don't see how you can see this as a big deal but not something like Clinton's Serbia trip.  They seem, at best, in the same league.  I don't really remember a Presidential candidate who didn't have at least a few of these quirks and manipulations.

I do hope someone asks him about it, though.  It warrants a response.  It won't be the basis of my vote, but it doesn't make me think any better of Senator Obama.

You're probably right.  I am a bit biased because I was a Hillary supporter and now I'm a McCain supporter.  But I think this irks me because as someone who just finished law school, I know how rigorous the character and fitness process is to pass the bar, and they specifically look into issues about lying about former employment.  I agree that Hillary lied about the Serbia trip though.  At the end of the day we're all going to just vote on the issues and our gut feeling of the candidates though.

[SomeLawStudent]

Thank you for your answer.  Respectfully, I think all candidates think that they are "better than everyone else" in what they plan to deliver.  I think that the perception that one candidate feels himself or herself "superior" is mostly connected to a fundamental dislike of them.  I often feel that way about Clinton.  I don't think that's really fair.

I do want to look into this more though.  In the end, I don't think Obama has a particularly extensive pattern of disingenuous behavior.  I don't see how you can see this as a big deal but not something like Clinton's Serbia trip.  They seem, at best, in the same league.  I don't really remember a Presidential candidate who didn't have at least a few of these quirks and manipulations.

I do hope someone asks him about it, though.  It warrants a response.  It won't be the basis of my vote, but it doesn't make me think any better of Senator Obama.

You're probably right.  I am a bit biased because I was a Hillary supporter and now I'm a McCain supporter.  But I think this irks me because as someone who just finished law school, I know how rigorous the character and fitness process is to pass the bar, and they specifically look into issues about lying about former employment.  I agree that Hillary lied about the Serbia trip though.  At the end of the day we're all going to just vote on the issues and our gut feeling of the candidates though.

You did vote for Obama in February.

How can you vote for someone that would basically reward everything that Bush has done in the past 8 years, let alone the regressive direction of the country for the past generation? Who is against everything that both Hillary and Obama stand for? Has the primary turned you off that much? You do realize that if McCain had been in a primary like that you probably would have discovered all sorts of outrageous things you couldn't stand about him, right?

Yes, I realize the reason I am voting for McCain is partially because of a heated Democratic Primary.  But it's not like I didn't give Barack Obama a shot, which is more than I can say for many of his supporters - certain groups in particular - for Hillary.  The fact is though, that I've grown tired of Obama and speech after meaningless speech when he is just like every other fake politician.  At least Hillary Clinton doesn't pretend she's not a political fake to the extent Obama does.

I think you're also forgetting how heated the Republican Primary was between McCain and Romney.  I was really turned off from that too.  But mostly by Romney.  If it was Romney vs. Obama, I would begrudgingly pull the lever for Obama.  But McCain is a Republican I find completely acceptable. 

As for the Bush policies.  I don't really have the same interests as hardcore Democrats as I'm a registered Independent.  I never liked Bush, I voted for Nader in 2000 and then Kerry in 2004.  However, I don't like Obama either.  And it's not like I don't have my own policy reasons for being against Obama.  Obama will raise my taxes, which is a huge issue for me.  Obama considers my starting legal salary to be "rich" but I don't see it that way because I have $150,000 in law school debt to pay off and I'm likely not to stay in a big firm where I will keep that salary for terribly long.  So voting for Obama would increase my taxes to a level that would make paying back loans difficult, especially in a high cost of living city.  Hillary would have done this too, but not as badly as Obama.  McCain is a moderate on issues like the environment, campaign reform, etc.  So he is a better choice than Obama to me.  I don't think it's a complete turn.  Clinton was to the right of Obama to begin with.

[SomeLawStudent]

So instead of voting for the guy who has very similar views as the two people you support (Edwards & Clinton) you will instead go in the direction of someone who disagrees with Edwards and Clinton on virtually every single issue, who sold his maverick soul and made a real hard right turn in order to win the GOP nomination, who is running a campaign on basically continuing every single Bush policy...   How much sense does that make?

On the issues that matter to me, there is a substantive difference between Hillary and Obama.  Also John McCain is not a continuation of Bush.  He is more moderate than Bush, he works across party lines more than Bush, hell he even ran against George Bush.

[SomeLawStudent]

So there is a primary with candidates A and B.  They are both about 95% identical on issues.  Candidate B wins.  Supporters of A say "Well we're gonna vote for the opposing party's candidate, even if he is completely different from A and B!!"

Not gonna happen for the hugely vast majority of Candidate A supporters.

Not sure what you base the "hugely vast majority" analysis on, when all the exit polls indicate that anywhere from 25-40% of her voters will defect to John McCain in November.

[SomeLawStudent]

Not sure what you base the "hugely vast majority" analysis on, when all the exit polls indicate that anywhere from 25-40% of her voters will defect to John McCain in November.

Of course, I have no exact figure for how many Hill supporters will vote Obama in the General, but I think it will be a good, solid majority. 

And I don't blame any supporter of a candidate for being bitter that their candidate is losing/will lose/has already lost (however you want to look at it.), especially since they have most probably invested themselves very emotionally and financially,  but I am sure Hillary values the Dem party enough that she will at least try to mend some rifts and unify the party against their enemy in November. 

Why are they telling exit pollsters that as many as 40%++ of them will either stay home or defect then?  I also don't think she's going to help unite the party.  She thinks Obama will lose to McCain and she will probably try to wait til 2012 to run again.  That's why I don't think she will accept a VP spot.  She has already waited 8 years for this, what's 4 more.

[SomeLawStudent]

In 2000, Exit polls showed one out of every five Republican primary voters in Virginia (including 46% of all McCain supporters) claiming they'd support Gore over Bush in the general election.

Similar numbers held in Connecticut, New York, Missouri, and probably other states as well. 

What's different this time around?

(Virginia was the first primary held where they asked this question...earlier primaries were held before Gore was confirmed as the nominee on the Democratic side.  The rest were taken from primaries the week after Virginia)

Connecticut and New York make perfect sense.  I voted for John McCain in the Connecticut primary against George Bush (Democratic race was basically decided), then went on to vote for Ralph Nader.  Not sure why so many claimed they would defect in VA or MO.  But in CT and NY a lot of Republicans DID vote against George Bush, that's why he lost those states so bad the first time he ran.

[SomeLawStudent]

Not sure what you base the "hugely vast majority" analysis on, when all the exit polls indicate that anywhere from 25-40% of her voters will defect to John McCain in November.

Of course, I have no exact figure for how many Hill supporters will vote Obama in the General, but I think it will be a good, solid majority. 

And I don't blame any supporter of a candidate for being bitter that their candidate is losing/will lose/has already lost (however you want to look at it.), especially since they have most probably invested themselves very emotionally and financially,  but I am sure Hillary values the Dem party enough that she will at least try to mend some rifts and unify the party against their enemy in November. 

Why are they telling exit pollsters that as many as 40%++ of them will either stay home or defect then?  I also don't think she's going to help unite the party.  She thinks Obama will lose to McCain and she will probably try to wait til 2012 to run again.  That's why I don't think she will accept a VP spot.  She has already waited 8 years for this, what's 4 more.

TBH....Exit Polls 6 months before the General Election during a verty dirty and competetive primary season doesnt usually mean much. Hopefully 6 months of working to unite the party is going to wield some results and im pretty sure [or just hoping...] some unity happens. Cause if it actually comes down to "half of clinton supporters would either stay home or vote McCain in the GE" come november....then all hope for the democratic party in the future is pretty much gone. Cause thats just obnoxiously sad...

It doesn't mean all hope for the democratic party is gone.  How is that the case?  Most of these people will probably still vote for Democrats down the ticket.  I live in a swing district and I plan to vote for Democrats for every office but President.  They will probably increase their majority in the House and Senate.  Which will make it hard for McCain to push through extremist Judges.

In fact, Democrats should benefit because Obama will increase liberal turnout and even though he'll probably lose moderate voters, most moderates will not vote for Republicans down the ticket, we have no incentive to.

[SomeLawStudent]

Thank you for your answer.  Respectfully, I think all candidates think that they are "better than everyone else" in what they plan to deliver.  I think that the perception that one candidate feels himself or herself "superior" is mostly connected to a fundamental dislike of them.  I often feel that way about Clinton.  I don't think that's really fair.

I do want to look into this more though.  In the end, I don't think Obama has a particularly extensive pattern of disingenuous behavior.  I don't see how you can see this as a big deal but not something like Clinton's Serbia trip.  They seem, at best, in the same league.  I don't really remember a Presidential candidate who didn't have at least a few of these quirks and manipulations.

I do hope someone asks him about it, though.  It warrants a response.  It won't be the basis of my vote, but it doesn't make me think any better of Senator Obama.

You're probably right.  I am a bit biased because I was a Hillary supporter and now I'm a McCain supporter.  But I think this irks me because as someone who just finished law school, I know how rigorous the character and fitness process is to pass the bar, and they specifically look into issues about lying about former employment.  I agree that Hillary lied about the Serbia trip though.  At the end of the day we're all going to just vote on the issues and our gut feeling of the candidates though.

You did vote for Obama in February.

How can you vote for someone that would basically reward everything that Bush has done in the past 8 years, let alone the regressive direction of the country for the past generation? Who is against everything that both Hillary and Obama stand for? Has the primary turned you off that much? You do realize that if McCain had been in a primary like that you probably would have discovered all sorts of outrageous things you couldn't stand about him, right?

Yes, I realize the reason I am voting for McCain is partially because of a heated Democratic Primary.  But it's not like I didn't give Barack Obama a shot, which is more than I can say for many of his supporters - certain groups in particular - for Hillary.  The fact is though, that I've grown tired of Obama and speech after meaningless speech when he is just like every other fake politician.  At least Hillary Clinton doesn't pretend she's not a political fake to the extent Obama does.

You can't judge a candidate by what some of his "supporters" may or may not do-- there are millions of people around and a candidate can't control his supporters. Two of the most painful Hillary gotchas where the media really went after her were Tuzla and Ferraro. Obama went out of his way to defend Hillary on both occasions. He criticized the media's focus on Ferraro during his Wright speech, saying it was a trivial issue. And in the Pennsylvania debate he said that Hillary had the right to make a mistake on Tuzla and we should focus on the important issues. That was very, very gracious and if you do not give him credit for it, too bad because he was being quite consistent in his personal desire to get past gotcha politics.

Obama may not be the perfect pol but he does aspire to a higher place than Clinton has, and that message is resonating. At least he reaches, and he has really run, all things considered, a more restrained campaign than her, even if his supporters have not. Obama's message is going to be the same no matter how many times you hear it; the point isn't to ooh because you think it's novel, the point is that it's the right message, and he'll keep repeating it not to entertain you but because that is what he has buit his campaign around. If you were only attracted to him because he was novel and new and saying things that you woud get tired of in a month, that is unfortunate but I hope you would reconsider.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think the republican primary between McCain and romney, which lasted only a month, and McCain scoring all the important wins, was really that heated. If McCain was forced into a very tough non winner take all primary till now, I can bet that he would have done many things that pissed people off and made numerous gaffes; furthermore he would be perceived much further to the right than he is now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama's spending plans, starting with health care, are considerably lighter than Clinton's, so something doesn't add up there. Clinton was "to the right" of Obama about the same as Kansas City, Kansas is to the west of Kansas City Missouri. They agreed on 62 of 64 votes according to the National Journal. That doesn't mean Kansas City, Kansas residents should move to Beijing. And on economic issues, he's arguably to the right of her.

Finally, I don't think it takes a hardcore Dem to vote Dem because of Bush. Strange as it may seem I was briefly a republican myself in 2001, and it had nothing to do with 9/11. We have had 8 years of an ultra-divisive President who is far to the right of even his own historically polarized congressional caucus. Voting for another 82% conservative will do nothing to heal our divisions in the long run and will just vindicate Bush.

This was too long to break up so I'll just address the main points below:

1) I don't generally hold a candidate's supporters against him/her, but in this case I'm especially turned off.  Particularly people who call me a racist for not voting for Obama.  It's actually given me a new found respect for Republicans who are constantly called Racist.  I actually now can empathize with them more. 

2) I remember the Republican campaign being pretty heated.  Basically McCain called Romney an empty suit and Romney spent millions of dollars on attack ads.

3) I don't think a McCain Presidency will be a vindication of Bush.  I mean, the man ran against Bush.  If anything, the fact that Republican's couldn't even nominate a conservative within their own party is indicative of how bad the Bush Brand is now.  And yeah, the ratings say McCain is pretty conservative, but he's perceived as a Maverick and all the conservatives I know don't like him, so clearly the hardcore Bush voters couldn't get their candidate (Romney) through.

4) Well Obama had made it clear that he wanted to raise taxes on people making above $150,000 a year.  I think he's flip-flopped on that now, but I don't really think that's fair to people who have massive student loan debt even if he does raise it closer to 200K.  He of all people should know that, being a lawyer who worked for a Big Law Firm and had a lot of student debt that he just paid off. 

[SomeLawStudent]

here is a post I lifted from Obama Underground (formerly Democratic Underground) I feel it best expresses how the rest of us feel about Obama.

This article seems to say:  Clinton should have been the nominee, but more people liked Obama, and I am mad my candidate lost.  You will vote for Obama in November if you are a Democrat.  This article is bitterness exemplified at the fair loss of your candidate, and the fair win of another.  It is understandable.  I felt the same way with my candidate of choice in '04.  However, you will definitely come around by November for your party. 

No, we really won't...  I don't think you understand how much some Hillary supporters dislike Obama.  Even though you probably won't believe it, I was never really a hardcore Hillary supporter, in fact I used to be an Obama supporter.  There are Hillary people that are WAY more anti-Obama than I am.  I just got turned off by his constant speeches and his general emptiness as a candidate.  A lot of Hillary Voters flat out dislike him and want to sabotage his campaign by voting for McCain so Hillary can run again in 2012.

[SomeLawStudent]

here is a post I lifted from Obama Underground (formerly Democratic Underground) I feel it best expresses how the rest of us feel about Obama.

This article seems to say:  Clinton should have been the nominee, but more people liked Obama, and I am mad my candidate lost.  You will vote for Obama in November if you are a Democrat.  This article is bitterness exemplified at the fair loss of your candidate, and the fair win of another.  It is understandable.  I felt the same way with my candidate of choice in '04.  However, you will definitely come around by November for your party. 

No, we really won't...  I don't think you understand how much some Hillary supporters dislike Obama.  Even though you probably won't believe it, I was never really a hardcore Hillary supporter, in fact I used to be an Obama supporter.  There are Hillary people that are WAY more anti-Obama than I am.  I just got turned off by his constant speeches and his general emptiness as a candidate.  A lot of Hillary Voters flat out dislike him and want to sabotage his campaign by voting for McCain so Hillary can run again in 2012.

Thats nothing to be proud of.

I'm not doing it personally to sabotage him so Hillary can run again.  I just personally don't want him to be President.  But why is it bad anyways to vote strategically?  DailyKos was telling Democrats to vote for Romney in the Michigan Primary to shake things up there.  There was no outrage on this board over that.  Everyone does it (vote's strategically) in election's they're not really interested in. 

[SomeLawStudent]

Also, virtually no Democrat in 2008 who supported Hillary because of her policy plans will vote for McCain.  I have nothing but what I've seen in past campaigns as evidence.  Quote me on this when November comes.

I supported Hillary's policy to raise taxes on the rich, but to leave the tax cuts permanent for those making 200K or under.  I didn't support Obama when he said raise raxes on everybody who makes over 150K per year. 

I now support McCain's tax policy over Obama's.

[SomeLawStudent]

SomeLawStudent says they will vote McCain because of their student debts, and that Obama will raise his taxes because his starting income will be within Obama's plan to raise the Social Security cap. 

Augh, beaten

Yes, and that's a substantive policy difference.  In fact, a huge percentage of people vote their pocketbooks, so it's not like it's even a minor difference.  Believe it or not, the 40% of Hillary voters are not lying to pollsters, maybe some of them are angry, but most of that 40% are not voting for Obama and a lot of them are going to vote for McCain.  Which is why Obama is losing to McCain in poll after poll of swing states like Ohio and Florida.

[SomeLawStudent]

But a lot of McCain supporters in CT/NY actually did vote for Gore.  Gore won those states by a huge margin, partially because Bush underperformed among Republicans.  I think issues did take precedence, but McCain was more centrist on the issues so a lot of moderate Republicans defected to Gore's moderate positions.  I bet the same will happen with moderate/conservative democrats who would have supported Clinton but will defect to McCain because Obama is too liberal.

[SomeLawStudent]

But a lot of McCain supporters in CT/NY actually did vote for Gore.  Gore won those states by a huge margin, partially because Bush underperformed among Republicans.  I think issues did take precedence, but McCain was more centrist on the issues so a lot of moderate Republicans defected to Gore's moderate positions.  I bet the same will happen with moderate/conservative democrats who would have supported Clinton but will defect to McCain because Obama is too liberal.

As if Gore was going to lose New York and Connecticut in the first place. I think you should point out those bitter in Virginia and Missouri who said they would defect to Gore...and yet Bush still won those states.

The fact that he won those states is irrelevant to the argument.  He could have won the states but by a smaller margin if there were defections.  There probably weren't as many defections in those states anyways because there aren't as many moderate Republicans there, or at least there weren't in Virginia in 2000.   Moderate Republicans don't live in a lot of swing states, that's why Bush played the culture war in the first place, he got a bunch of conservative democrats and the liberal republicans he lost were all in states that didn't matter anyways.

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, many conservative democrats ARE in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Florida, Missouri.  So when they defect it means he won't be able to win an electoral majority.

[SomeLawStudent]

I checked the first Obama entry on Wiki from early 2004; they preserve the history.  Obama is listed correctly as a lecturer.  I'm inclined to believe that this was a mistake from someone on the campaign, nothing more.  I do not expect Obama to look over each piece of campaign material.  I think we should give him a pass on that one.

I put a link up above in the discussion;  Obama has repeatedly referred to himself as a full-fledged Constitutional Law Professor when discussing very specific legal issues.  It's not on campaign literature, it's coming directly from Obama himself in a very deceitful way.

[SomeLawStudent]

"The University of Chicago has said that he was a senior lecturer, which is different from lecturer and actually the equivalent of full professor. The only difference is that he was not tenured (but neither are many professors)."

This is so frustrating because it's so obviously not true.  The school can cover his basis and the word "professor" can be thrown around in the vernacular, but anyone who has attended law school knows very well that a guest lecturer is not considered a Constitutional Law Professor.  Someone who attended Harvard Law School ought to know that.  I can understand why people who have probably never set foot in a law school classroom would assume that since he lectured at a law school he is therefore a Professor.  But he is clearly not a Constitutional Law Professor.

It was a colloquialism introduced by some random supporter. He was offered a tenure track position, but declined.

Even so... Obama has propogated the colloquialism by referring to himself as a Constitutional Law Professor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics

If someone gets offered a job but doesn't take it, that doesn't give them that job title.  Again, as a Harvard Law Graduate he should have chosen his words more carefully.  Character and Fitness Issues like that have gotten people disbarred.

Okay, valid point.  He did refer to himself as a professor.  There is some puffery with Obama.

Which I wouldn't normally mind.  I expect politicians to be a little bit fake to people, it's almost a good thing sometimes, it shows they can be diplomatic.  But Obama is holding himself out to be so much better than all us simple worthless and bitter people who couldn't attend Harvard Law School, so he should rise above all that if he's going to bring change to Washington.